Granted, if God was a contingent being then God would surely need some antecedent cause. However this is not CA but an unfortunate deformation. The actual argument is all contingent causes require a cause.  His/her follow up comment was more interesting (and entertaining) as he/she asserted that this was a case of special pleading.

Unfortunately this is also wrong and belies only a passing acquaintance with informal fallacies. For a good example of special pleading consider this example: Everyone should obey the speed limit, except for State Police in Colorado.  This makes an exception to a subset of classes within a class without qualification. In other words for CA to be a case of special pleading a necessary condition of the fallacy is that the argument is presented in its incorrect form.  Special pleading could be leveled against CA if and only if God is represented as a contigent being that is not subject to contigency and has no antecedent cause.

P1 A *chain* of causation must be finite. Notice, the atheist who offers the query “Who made God?”  is acknowledging that causation exists as a chain and is simply attempting to inquire as to the origins of the first cause. Symbolically we could represent this in this manner: Here is a list of causes beginning with the first cause (x1).  X1->X2->X3.  Suppose this is my argument X1 caused X2 which caused X3 to wit the Atheist replies “I agree that X2 and X3 have a cause but what caused X1? 

X1 is uncaused.  Doesn’t this seem irrational? No, in fact the theistic position is much more reasonable than the atheistic one. X1 is not a finite effect. Every contigent existent has a cause and is an effect of prior causation. The first cause, in this example X1 is a Necessary *Cause* and is not bound up in contigency.  The chain of causation begins with a necessary being that is not the effect of prior causation.  The atheistic position posits an uncaused cause that is neither contigent nor necessary.

Here are A. Dave’s opening remarks

“Fortunately, most moderately intelligent theists won’t bother playing the Pascal card when debating religion, but nevertheless there are many who do.” 

Here are my list of gripes with an opening comment like this:

i. Only an imbecile would use PW in argumentation with an atheist (at least that’s the implication)

ii. What exactly does A. Dave mean by playing the Pascal card? Certainly, this is perjorative however does it follow that playing the Pascal card is always a bad thing? What if the pragmatic utility of the argument opens up further dialogue? 

iii. Why does A. Dave conclude that the theist not using PW is a *fortunate* occurence? Is the forthcoming atheistic refutation of PW so devastating that the theist might end up de-converted ? How or why would this be thought of as *fortunate*?  Perhaps A.Dave has so much experience refuting PW that he has become bored and simply cannot fathom having to *yet* again provide the refutation for any fool who haphazardly uses such a pedestrian line of reasoning.

Something tells me that A. Dave will not stop at simply asserting that only theists who are either mildly retarded or backwoods fundies use PW, no I believe he is going to attempt to convince his audience (the gentle readers who may be reading this rejoinder) that PW is flawed and badly so.

Consider this quote from A. Dave atheistic defender of rationality (perhaps  that was uncalled for?) if so, my apologies.

“I make no attempt to prove or disprove the existence of any god in this post; just to counter the Pascal’s Wager argument.”

So A. Dave, takes as his project offering a refutation of PW.

Brief Interlude:

This should be good. I am almost giddy with excitement, I mean Pascal was afterall a genius but still I am sure A. Dave will handily dispense of this pesky Wager that has hung around for several centuries. I mean years from now the Wager along with the pet rock,  the AMC Pacer, and parachute pants will only be known in  museums and perhaps in Wikipedia under the heading of “Arguments for God soundly defeated by obscure atheists”  

So, without further ado here is A. Dave’s first point contra PW (Remember these are A.Dave’s points)

1. First, being that he was Christian, it’s clear Blaise Pascal was referring to belief in the Christian god. To the skeptic, however, one need only swap the name God for another name (Allah, Zeus, Odin, et al) because the fact is that most mainstream gods demand worship and punish those who don’t offer it. So which god should I bet on? How do you know the god you’re betting on is the right god? Is anybody really making a safe bet? (http://atheistdave.wordpress.com/)

Ok, I am a little disappointed with this first point.

i. First, A. Dave says that you can substitute the name God for another name…he then catalogs a list of proper names for conceptions of God. In other words he says you substitute a generic name *God* for a proper name *X,Y,Z*   I really hate to be picky but wouldn’t you want to do the exact opposite of what A. Dave has just stated? In other words why would you move from simple to complex?  The term *God* is generic and could mean any number of things to any number of people. While proper names (and he strangely omits the proper name of the Christian God to which he says Pascal was most certainly arguing in favor of) are far more complex as they communicate specific properties of the respective deity. A point made by Lycan and Schlesinger in their defense of PW (see here)

Well, point number one left a little to be desired but I am sure A. Dave has something spectacular planned for point number two. Let’s see: (Again the following is from Atheist Dave)

2.Second, belief is not a light switch. One can’t just say “Oh, in that case I believe.” In order to believe something is true, one must be convinced of its truthfulness. Threats like Pascal’s Wager do nothing to convince anybody of anything.(http://atheistdave.wordpress.com/)

I am stunned. I really did not anticipate the sadness I would feel seeing PW crumble under the weight of A.Dave’s critique. There is only one point that I would like to make in response.

ii. If belief is not open to being changed then by good and necessary consequence his post is pointless. However, assuming that he does not really believe  what he has written let me have a go at interacting with his comment.  He does not deal with *what* constitutes a justified true belief. Furthermore, he makes a statement that is roughly analogous with saying *all married men are no longer bachelors* by saying to believe something one must be convinced of its truthfulness. This *must* then leave open the possibility that someone somewhere could be convinced of the existence of God by PW. This is different than saying *I* am not convinced of the theistic position but that is not what A. Dave wrote.

Sadly, the merry-go-round of refutation must come to a halt. I do not think that Dave’s objection is all that serious nor is it philosophically refined enough to be taken seriously. PW has enjoyed serious discussion for many years (even centuries) and though Dave wants to dismiss it as a tool for the novice apologist this post has just scratched the surface as to the issues that could be raised in defense of PW.

Cheers,

BBG

Perhaps atheists could stop hiding behind the pretend guise of rationality and acknowledge the irrationality at bottom of their worldview.  On one hand atheists [the majority anyhow] hold that evolution explains origins. On the other hand these same atheists fail to acknowledge that she is one cruel bitch. This is the part where the rational-irrational tension exists. Atheists love to belly ache and gripe about God’s supposed cruelty and yet the monstrous goddess MN [mother nature] is portrayed as a cosmic little red riding hood with cookies for grandma and everyone who eats organic fruit and seperates out their recycling. 

All the while, MN is busy making certain that only the strong survive, nature red tooth and claw. Perhaps embracing MN as more a nefarious Sea Hag than a daisy toting new ager will help remind our atheistic friends of the irrationality of holding to evolution while complaining about fairness, dignity, and meaning.

Here are my comments on his blog, along with quotes from his blog (http://atheistdave.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/miracles-2/)

Atheist Dave:” A miracle is any event that betrays the laws of nature. It is not simply something science has no answer for, but something science and scientific laws explicitly state could not happen. ”

This is an oversimplification of the term *miracle*. Atheists (Flew et.al) and Theists (Augustine, Aquinas, Spinoza) have offered up various definitions of the term miracle. In what sense are you referring to miracles (strong vs. weak?)

Furthermore to assert as you do that miracles ‘betray’ the laws of nature seems to be a very unusual way of phrasing such an objection. By ‘betray’ do you mean violated? Assuming this is your meaning how do you know that the law has been violated? As the Physicist Sir George Stokes argued a miracle may not be a suspension of the laws rather a miracle is the new effect of a supernatural cause. You seem to acknowledge this view when you provide the analogy about the meteor.

Your appeal to science commits you to a position that is untenable. You appeal to science which is based on observations (i.e. empirical data) However without even questioning this presupposition you dismiss miracles. This is a case of special pleading. Either empiricism provides for matters of fact as Hume would say or it does not. Which is it?

Atheist Dave says: “While some of the primary parts of the Bible (Jesus, as an example) are clearly sampled from previous religions, I’m sure some parts are simply huge exaggerations of actual events. “

First, how do you know that Jesus was *sampled* ? The scholarly debate on this subject has never proved anything other than superficial similiarities between the so-called dying and rising savior myths (See Edwin Yamauchi’s work on the subject). Arguing that because something is similar *means* that it was borrowed is a non-sequitar.

Finally, how do you know that these events did not occur? You are asking me to accept your testimony as authoritative because you did not have this experience, but there is no way for you to argue that they never happened. You can only say, you have never experienced one.

****

End of comments

Here and Here.

 I believe the Christian worldview when properly understood and argued for at the presuppositional level is the only rational choice. The atheistic worldview (whether it is reductionist,materialist, naturalist)  cannot bear the weight of its own requirements for rationality.

1. Arguing against one form of Christianity: The best example of this in recent memory was my pal Fribnit. He was arguing against one form of Christianity [Arminianism] by positing “free will” when my theological persuasions are completely different [Reformed, Determinist] The *Debunking* crew is pretty good at this.

2. Failing to acknolwedge atheistic presuppositions: This is a big one. Most atheists get very shy when pressed to admit their own presuppositions. In this area, atheists most resemble fundamentalists. Typically *fundies* whether Christian or atheistic have a hard time admitting what they presuppose. For the Christian fundamentalist things like the moderate use of alchohol often raise the same sort of emotional eyebrows as reductionism, naturalism, and physicalism do for the anti-theist.

3. Misinterpreting the bible: Atheists who attempt to intrepret the bible often do so in a way that is utterly fallacious. Here’s the scenario, atheist looks at a bible passage let’s say 1 Tim. 2:4 and says see the bible endorses universalism. For a great example see this post.

Atheists claim to have truth, rationality, even logic on *their* side. Yet, the fallacious manner in which they typically argue [sometimes you can't even get an actual argument] belies the fact that many of these folks have an emotional beef with God rather than a well thought out argument.

Before I delve into that, I want to mention that I don’t believe that my *tone* was condesceding. My first interaction with Fribnit was on his blog. He wrote about the Big Daddy in the Sky. I believe one could argue effectively that Fribnit’s post was condescending. He looks down upon God and believers. This does not *emotionally* effect me at all. He is doing what comes naturally for the atheist.  I was cordial in my initial communcation though I pressed him to support some of his conclusions. You are welcome to view those comments and decided for your self…they are located here:

http://fribnitsworld.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/a-thought-about-parenting/

At issue was his assertion that the imaginary man upstairs (his words not mine) had given us freewill.  I stated in my comments that freewill was unbiblical. The rest as they say is history. Now, I certainly did not mean to be condescending but if you examine the word very closely you will note that the denotation and the connotation of the word are quite different. When someone condescends they may have a superior rank, or in this case a superior grasp of a concept. If I as a believer do not have a *superior* grasp of the bible-over against the atheist-what good am I to him? I cannot hope to convince him of my position as I would constantly be at the feet of the atheist hoping to glean some biblical insight. 

Pointing out, as I did that the bible does not teach freewill is not condescending it is a corrective. Atheists have attempted to correct me on my blog. I do not find this offensive as that is the nature of my posts. If I disagree with them, I clarify my arguments or refine my position. That is the nature of debate [or for a softer term with a less threatening connotation] discussion.

My project in all of this was to assert and support if necessary by an appeal to scripture that *freewill* was unbiblical. As a Christian that is my position [not all Christians share this view].  What wound up happening is something entirely different. Fribnit attempted to defend freewill, a view he originally ascribed to the IMITS or BDIS [imaginary man in the Sky, Big Daddy in the Sky] a view which he now ascribes to nature.  One wonders why he didn’t simply agree that freewill is unbiblical since he does not believe in the Christian God?

It is my opinion that atheists should reject the notion of free will [on such atheist has dropped by already to support my conclusions see here] on these grounds:

1-Evolution does not allow for such a notion. The antecedent causes are determined by cellular mutation.

2-Unknowingly posits a concept that cannot be accounted for by physicalism “will, volitions,  etc.”  Where is the seat of “will” in the physical brain?

3-Does not comport with current “science” 

-reductionist science must necessarily reject free will as a delusion. We are afterall just a product of our DNA.  [Point 1a]

Yeah, I followed the dialog that led up to some of the commentary in here, and refrained from slamming BBG for what he said, which was nothing short of ad hominem and added nothing of substance to the debate…but I figured you could hold your own very well without my mouthy side…and you DID. *grin*)

She was *going* to slam me for my ad-hominem that added nothing to the debate. So, Prosey *believes* that saying this :”In all honesty and charity you simply do not have a good grasp of *free will*. There can be no such concept as free will based on the presupposition of physicalism.”

So telling someone that they don’t understand a concept is akin to an ad-hominem? Interesting. Now let’s look at what Fribnit said [this will be fun]…..”I think you are a pompous ass” So Prosey said she was going to slam me and Fribnit calls me a pompous ass and I am guilty of an ad-hominem?  I think the reader

She went on to say that I had not responded to her post here on BBG. Well folks, the wait is over:

Prosey:(1. “mirages” // “water”) No, that is what could easily be considered non sequitur argument. We can create perfectly scientific tests that demonstrate (quantitatively and qualitatively) that mirages on a road exist where water is not present, based upon what we know about light and heat; much like the illusion in a vast desert. Intelligent nomads trust their camels, not their eyes.

BBG: This begs the question. It is not a non-sequitar as I said based on your criteria a mirage could be considered evidence. I know that a mirage is not real, but I am not an empiricist therefore the onus is not on me for providing justification for my knowledge based on sense experience.  At issue is what you presuppose not what I pressupose.

 Prosey: 2.( “immutability” // “uniformity of nature” // consistency)

In the sense that I used the word “immutable” was based on the definition of (a) the word “evidence” (available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and (b) the word “immutable” (Not subject or susceptible to chang) — in that, I was not “appealing to immutability” (which is a theological argument I was not making — I did, however, choose the word because you ARE a Christian, so you know the meaning of the word in a different sense).

 BBG: You never addressed what I said. How does the uniformity of nature comport with the naturalistic assumptions of atheism. If you want to jettison naturalism as one of your axioms that’s fine with me however you must state your presupposition for the conversation to precede. 

Your next two points really do not say much other than you seem to indirectly agree that there is a problem of induction and make attempt to demonstrate how atheism solves the problem of induction. The difficulty here is that based on your worldview you destroy the possibility of knowledge.

Finally you assert, incorrectly that Christian presuppositions can be replaced with a laundry list of other worldviews even including Wicca. You simply cannot make a case for this. The worldviews you have mentioned do not at any point make the same the claims. One is monistic, one is Trinitarian, one is Atheistic. All of these take for their starting point a different set of presuppositions. You would have to demonstrate that you can make the same argument that I am making based on those other worldviews but until such time this is conjecture and speculation on your part.

 Postscript: Fribnit is still complaining on his blog about me. It must be very embarrassing for the keepers of rationality to have to resort to banning a commenter because they have no response and cannot muster a reply.