Rebuttal: Karlo Broussard's False "A God-Bathed World" argument

[Scowler]

You seem to be using many words however you see fit. It seems a good idea to check.

By the way, which words do you refer to?

 

[MPat]

Exactly. Accepting it as a hypothesis.

The contradiction does not need to be a logically inconsistent state of affairs. It is sufficient if the observed state of affairs is contradictory to the hypothesis. (Of course in the case of the Catholic teachings about God’s alleged attributes we arrive at a logical contradiction, too, but that is not the topic here and now.)

You need to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God’s interference to prevent the Holocaust would have actually lead to an even worse state of affairs.

And here we have the contradiction. When you’re demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt for X, you’re obviously not temporarily accepting the hypothesis X. You might be accepting hypothesis not-X temporarily - and looking for contradiction (indicated by that “proof beyond reasonable doubt”). Or just accepting not-X.

Accepting not-X might still be fine. But not admitting that is not.

Seriously, can you explain why you shouldn’t say that you looked at Catholicism, rejected it, and that’s that? You say you have found a logical contradiction - are you going to actually accept that logical contradiction, as long as you are given lots of evidence, or what?

By the way, which words do you refer to?

There was the problem with “brute facts” recently.

 

[ethereality]

MPat, regarding your ‘green cheese’ comment (and some other responses), it appears to me that you still don’t understand what I’m writing, but I don’t see the good in trying to explain any further to you. It seems you have some barrier to full comprehension of what you’re reading, that you understand most of it, but there’s something that throws you off course, so to speak. So I don’t see a web forum as a good means to communicate with you.

 

[ethereality]

That you can be satisfied with finding a recent proximate cause means that you’ve truly arrived at the end of an infinite series of events? That’s quite a leap of reasoning.

That’s not what I wrote. I said we do not seek, nor do we need, the entire series to explain a given event. I said we only seek the proximate cause and do not regard the entire series. “Why is this tablecloth dirty?” “Because I knocked over the glass.” We don’t say, “I knocked over the glass because I was tired because I need to go to bed but I have this term paper to write because I didn’t finish it yesterday because I got a flat tire because someone dropped debris on the road because they weren’t paying attention, because they were listening to talk radio, because their neighbors voted for …” It should be obvious that when explaining an event, we only care about the causes proximal to the event we’re interested in. We don’t need the entire per accidens series to be satisfied with an explanation.

By definition, it is not possible to reach the end of in infinite series of actual events.

No one here has suggested doing so. You are the first to make this comment. However, I would venture to guess that you do not understand the logical fallacy of the kalam argument. Namely, the series extends backwards from the present; that is the premise. I.e., for any given moment in time, you can identify a moment in time prior to it. Hence you contradict yourself – not contradict the premise – if you try to start at ‘the first moment’ of an infinite past, because in the premise you’ve declared that there is no ‘first’ moment. This is irrelevant to what I said in my original posts, however; this is just a side comment to your side comment.

 

[Scowler]

And here we have the contradiction. When you’re demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt for X, you’re obviously not temporarily accepting the hypothesis X.

Well, looks like we have some fundamental miscommunication here. I think you don’t understand what it means to “entertain a hypothesis temporarily”.

It does NOT mean that one accepts that the hypothesis IS true (even on a temporary basis), however it means that one is willing to contemplate that the hypothesis MIGHT be true, and one is willing to listen to the supporting evidence, instead of dismissing the hypothesis out-of-hand.

Using the previous example of the New Age hypothesis for the curative powers of crystals and the pyramidal shapes, I consider them totally nonsensical, idiotic and ridiculous propositions, but I stay OPEN to the possibility, that I am mistaken, and the proponents are correct… and on that platform I am willing listen to the supporting evidence… if there is ANY. (So far there was none.)

Let me repeat my previous question: “What else do you expect me to do”? What does the “temporary acceptance of a hypothesis mean to you”?

As a matter of fact, I am quite glad that this problem came up to be talked about. I thought that you are aware what does it mean to “entertain a hypothesis provisionally”. Looks like that your interpretation of this phrase is different from mine. And I have no idea what yours might be. So I presented my understanding of this proposition, so you can either accept of discard it. I hope that you will accept it, or, if you disagree with it, give me some reason, why you discard it.

Seriously, can you explain why you shouldn’t say that you looked at Catholicism, rejected it, and that’s that? You say you have found a logical contradiction - are you going to actually accept that logical contradiction, as long as you are given lots of evidence, or what?

Logical contradictions cannot be accepted. However, it might be true that there is something that I considered to be a logical contradiction - due to MY poor understanding (!), and it turns out that I was mistaken, and there is a logical explanation, and what I thought to be a logical contradiction is really nothing of that kind. That is the most I can do. I don’t think we need to go there, here and now. I am willing to engage in that particular exchange of ideas, but I would prefer to finish this one first.

 

[ethereality]

Scowler, at this point I would prefer you private message him or start
another thread, as the topic here is supposed to be about Karlo Broussard’s
bad article, how he conflates per accidens with per se series, how he begs
the question that the tree needs more than our scientific models to explain
its existence, etc.

 

[Scowler]

Scowler, at this point I would prefer you private message him or start another thread, as the topic here is supposed to be about Karlo Broussard’s bad article, how he conflates per accidens with per se series, how he begs the question that the tree needs more than our scientific models to explain its existence, etc.

You have a point there. The problem is that it is next to impossible to prevent some side-tracks from developing in any threads. It seems that MPat has a strange understanding about some very fundamental concepts, like “what is a provisional acceptance of a hypothesis.” To explore this misconception seems to lead to more common understandings, which would be mutually beneficial.

I realize that the side-track was due to my challenge to the idea that there are no “brute facts”. It seemed to be a good idea to challenge this nonsense.

 

[MPat]

Scowler, at this point I would prefer you private message him or start
another thread, as the topic here is supposed to be about Karlo Broussard’s
bad article, how he conflates per accidens with per se series, how he begs
the question that the tree needs more than our scientific models to explain
its existence, etc.

That shouldn’t be much of a problem for several reasons:

1. That side discussion is practically over anyway.
2. The “main” discussion is also over.
3. They reached almost the same point.

MPat, regarding your ‘green cheese’ comment (and some other responses), it appears to me that you still don’t understand what I’m writing, but I don’t see the good in trying to explain any further to you. It seems you have some barrier to full comprehension of what you’re reading, that you understand most of it, but there’s something that throws you off course, so to speak.

I am pretty sure I do understand what you are writing. I also get an impression that I do get an idea of what you want to say (which is different).

You talked as if that was your method of finding the truth:

Rather, I try to look at reality and make conclusions based on my experiences and my senses, because these are fundamental to action and communication.

As a method, it is terrible - as I said, its use would lead to silly conclusions about Moon made of green cheese (you did rule out experiences of someone else - like astronauts).

But I also suspect that here you are not presenting a method. You are bragging.

If you had presented a method, we could help you to describe it precisely (by pointing out parts which are unclear) and to see how it works. But you do not seem to be interested in that. And if you’re just bragging, what are we supposed to do?

Let’s look further:

Rather, I disagree with your apparent epistemology of seeing which assumptions lead to favorable conclusions and then choosing whatever is most favorable.

Well, looks like we have some fundamental miscommunication here. I think you don’t understand what it means to “entertain a hypothesis temporarily”.

It does NOT mean that one accepts that the hypothesis IS true (even on a temporary basis), however it means that one is willing to contemplate that the hypothesis MIGHT be true, and one is willing to listen to the supporting evidence, instead of dismissing the hypothesis out-of-hand.

(Aren’t they similar?)

That’s why I found it useful to check what you meant.

Now, of course, the thing you describe is “being open minded, but not really”. Very good for feeling superior to others. Not very good for finding truth.

Yet, if you would gather enough courage to make temporary assumptions and take them seriously, they could lead you to some truth. As in natural deduction - feel free to look at, let’s say, http://homepage.univie.ac.at/christian.damboeck/ps06/clemente_nat_ded.pdf - for example, parts 4.4, 4.8.

 

[ethereality]

I don’t exclude others’experiences, but these can only lead to belief, not
knowledge. I don’t know what’s on the moon because I haven’t been there; I
can only believe or disbelieve what I am told. You may think it “terrible”
that our knowledge is limited to our experiences, but we are finite beings
and must accept our limitations if we are to be rational.

Do you understand my position better now?

 

[MPat]

I don’t exclude others’experiences, but these can only lead to belief, not
knowledge. I don’t know what’s on the moon because I haven’t been there; I
can only believe or disbelieve what I am told. You may think it “terrible”
that our knowledge is limited to our experiences, but we are finite beings
and must accept our limitations if we are to be rational.

Do you understand my position better now?

Let’s see… You refuse to know that Moon is not made of green cheese and brag about your rationality, while looking down on others. And you also claim to know that per accidens causal series you gave is completely sufficient.

Your position is crystal clear now. (And not just your position.)

I guess there isn’t much worth adding here…

 

[Scowler]

(Aren’t they similar?)

No, they are not. You believe that “entertaining a hypothesis” is the same as accepting it axiomatically. That is why I had to spend (waste) time by quoting the definitions for “hypothesis” and “axiom”. And since you STILL do not understand these basic concepts, there is nothing else to talk about.

As for the article you linked, it is useful to understand the difference between “logically correct” and “logically sound” deductions. I tried to find the concept of “logically sound” in it, but it was nowhere to be found. So much for the usefulness of that article.

To be open minded is just the willingness to listen to the arguments which are presented. (If any. ) Nothing more!

 

[ethereality]

MPat, you have misrepresented both of my positions. Rather, there is no
evidence to support a green cheese moon, nor have you given any evidence
that the series I gave is an insufficient explanation.

 

[po18guy]

instead of stabbing Karlo in the back with an accusation of “false”, why not contact him?

 

[ethereality]

1. I’m not “stabbing him in the back”: I’m saying it to his face, publicly, here.
2. It’s not an accusation: I’ve demonstrated it to be true.
3. I checked his website previously and he provided no means to contact him, only information to book him for public speaking.
4. I called “Catholic Answers Live”, and ‘unfortunately they didn’t have time to get to me’, yet he chose to leave the room and have the operator disconnect me, rather than speak with me privately off-the-air.
5. I commented on his articles in the old website system but he has ignored them.
6. We did email. He sent me one reply to an email I’d written Catholic Answers which likewise misunderstood and failed to engage my points, again relying on an overly-simplistic conception of reality. (As I recall, I pointed out problems in his reply, explaining why he was incorrect, and he did not reply again.)

Hence I appreciate your post, but it is entirely incorrect: I’m not ‘stabbing him in the back’ and I have tried contacting him. Publicly denouncing his unsound philosophy here (where he is free to respond) is in fact the ‘last resort’: After they fail to correct a problem, we must warn others about it. This is even a Biblical principle (that someone who sees danger yet refuses to warn others becomes liable for their bloodshed).

 

[po18guy]

OK. Fair enough. Which member is he? And, by what authority do you declare him to be “false”?

Just a rather strong assertion is all.

 

[exnihilo]

You mean you can “prove” that the seemingly gratuitous suffering is actually benevolent? I am all ears. But to say that “maybe” those seemingly gratuitous sufferings are actually blessings in disguise, and we would be convinced of this IF only God would take the time and effort to explain them to us… is NOT an argument. At best it is an empty wishful thinking. You need to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God’s interference to prevent the Holocaust would have actually lead to an even worse state of affairs.

What is gratuitous suffering and how do you know any suffering is gratuitous? You would need to believe in morality and purpose to life and the universe. Neither of these are material things. So I’m curious what your explanation of the immaterial realities of morality and purpose are? You need a God to condemn God with the problem of evil.

Regarding suffering for defending arguments for God you just need to demonstrate it is possible that a greater good could result. You don’t need to address particular evils and explain them.

No one here has suggested doing so. You are the first to make this comment. However, I would venture to guess that you do not understand the logical fallacy of the kalam argument. Namely, the series extends backwards from the present; that is the premise. I.e., for any given moment in time, you can identify a moment in time prior to it. Hence you contradict yourself – not contradict the premise – if you try to start at ‘the first moment’ of an infinite past, because in the premise you’ve declared that there is no ‘first’ moment. This is irrelevant to what I said in my original posts, however; this is just a side comment to your side comment.

No, the Kalam argument posits a beginning of time. For each moment of time there is not a moment prior. There is for all but the first.

 

[Scowler]

What is gratuitous suffering and how do you know any suffering is gratuitous?

Very simple. Any suffering that is not logically necessary is gratuitous. That is the definition of gratuitous suffering. And any suffering that we, definitely NOT omnipotent beings can prevent or lessen cannot be necessary.

You don’t need to address particular evils and explain them.

But you do. Even ONE counter example invalidates the idea of God’s alleged “benevolence”. That is why you have an uphill battle. In order to establish God’s omni-benevolence you must argue for each and every one of the documented sufferings. In order to prove that God is not omni-benevolent all we have to do is to present ONE counter example.

Regarding suffering for defending arguments for God you just need to demonstrate it is possible that a greater good could result. You don’t need to address particular evils and explain them.

Hell, no. You need to demonstrate that a greater good WILL (or DID) result (not “could” result), and also that lessening the suffering would not lead to that greater good.

 

[exnihilo]

Very simple. Any suffering that is not logically necessary is gratuitous. That is the definition of gratuitous suffering. And any suffering that we, definitely NOT omnipotent beings can prevent or lessen cannot be necessary.

What is logically necessary suffering? Necessary for what?

But you do. Even ONE counter example invalidates the idea of God’s alleged “benevolence”. That is why you have an uphill battle. In order to establish God’s omni-benevolence you must argue for each and every one of the documented sufferings. In order to prove that God is not omni-benevolent all we have to do is to present ONE counter example.

No. That makes no sense. If God is omnipotent then there is no way we could explain every situation. We aren’t omnipotent.

The only way your argument holds weight is if you can say that no amount of suffering is ever good. Are you willing to say that? If you aren’t then you acknowledge that suffering can be good. And unless you can explain why what would be ultimately an arbitrary line over which suffering is bad is in fact bad then you have no claim against God due to the existence of suffering.

 

[Scowler]

What is logically necessary suffering? Necessary for what?

Necessary to achieve some “greater” good, which cannot be achieved otherwise, and even lessening the suffering would make that “greater” good impossible to actualize. This is the so called “greater good” argument when faced with the problem of evil.

No. That makes no sense. If God is omnipotent then there is no way we could explain every situation. We aren’t omnipotent.

(You probably meant that we are not “omniscient”.) If you cannot explain, then you are not in the position to declare that God is omni-benevolent. It would be an utterance of blind faith.

The only way your argument holds weight is if you can say that no amount of suffering is ever good. Are you willing to say that?

If there is a logically necessary suffering, then there is no problem. Omnipotence means that God can eliminate any and all sufferings, except the ones that are logically necessary. No matter how hard I tried I could not come up with an example. A suffering that is beyond the power of God to eliminate. I have never seen anyone else who could come up with an example. Maybe you can? I am patient.

If you aren’t then you acknowledge that suffering can be good.

It is insufficient to say that some amount of suffering CAN be good. What you need is to show that

1. there is some specific amount of suffering which leads to some greater good, and
2. that greater good more than compensates for the suffering (in other words, the suffering was WORTH it), and
3. the suffering cannot be decreased at all without jeopardizing that “good”.

If you can come up with an example, then everything is A-OK.

And unless you can explain why what would be ultimately an arbitrary line over which suffering is bad is in fact bad then you have no claim against God due to the existence of suffering.

The line is not arbitrary. It is drawn by God’s alleged omnipotence.

 

[exnihilo]

Necessary to achieve some “greater” good, which cannot be achieved otherwise, and even lessening the suffering would make that “greater” good impossible to actualize. This is the so called “greater good” argument when faced with the problem of evil.

I’m confused. This is exactly the argument against the problem of evil. But you are arguing the problem of evil is a real problem?

If there is a logically necessary suffering, then there is no problem. Omnipotence means that God can eliminate any and all sufferings, except the ones that are logically necessary. No matter how hard I tried I could not come up with an example. A suffering that is beyond the power of God to eliminate. I have never seen anyone else who could come up with an example. Maybe you can? I am patient.

To be clear, you agree suffering can be necessary for a greater good?

The greater good would be the salvation of more souls through suffering.

It is insufficient to say that some amount of suffering CAN be good. What you need is to show that

there is some specific amount of suffering which leads to some greater good, and
that greater good more than compensates for the suffering (in other words, the suffering was WORTH it), and
the suffering cannot be decreased at all without jeopardizing that “good”.

If you can come up with an example, then everything is A-OK.

You are asking me to be God. But more importantly the only way you could object is if you are God. Only an omniscient creature could know that any particular suffering won’t result in a greater good.