DEBUNKING COMMON ATHEISTS' ARGUMENTS AGAINST KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (PART II)

Atheist Contention: YOUR ARGUMENT COMMITS SPECIAL PLEADING FALLACY

'Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.' Mark Twain

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle. This is the application of a double standard.

Recently i had a debate with an atheist on Quora.

Atheist: "are you actually NOT claiming that God is uncaused? The ONLY uncaused cause? If you are claiming that he is, the special pleading is obvious".

My Reply:

Let’s get this straight once and for all.
Let’s define special pleading fallacy:
 “Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle. This is the application of a double standard.”

Special pleading fallacies :

1. Everything that exists must require a cause.
2. God exists.
3. He does not require a cause. (A Special pleading fallacy)

1. Everything that begins to exist must require a cause.
2. God began to exist.
3. God does not require a cause. (A Special pleading fallacy)
   
   1. Matter cannot be deemed eternal
   2. God can be deemed eternal (A Special pleading fallacy)

1. Matter cannot be deemed eternal because it changes.
2. God can be deemed eternal and He changes. (A Special pleading fallacy)
   
   
   What my argument says:
   1. Matter cannot be deemed eternal because it is subject to change (according to the opinion held by the opponent i.e. opponent agrees that the matter changes forms. The problem is he holds "matter" to be "always existent" at the same time and this is a contradiction. )
   2. God is Eternal and HE is NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE (since the definition of the word Eternal or "always existent" is that it is not subject to changes).
   3. If the opponent holds “MATTER to be eternal” and rejects “change” in it we have no objection. But we say this is absurd because then (according to the very principles of the opponent) eternal matter is lifeless, unconscious, powerless. And by rational necessity, nothing would have come into existence and this contradicts observable reality.
   
    It is intellectual dishonesty for you to claim something which isn’t part of the original argument. I don't need to rethink my post, you need to re-read it until you understand it.
   
   Atheist:
   What opponent exactly? The OP mentioned not a single one of the things you claim. His original question was simply “Is it possible for someone to be an atheist”.
   

   If you are referring to another poster, you certainly didn’t make this clear. If not, that was a truly amazing straw man.
   
   
   

   My reply:

   
   

   Side-track.
   

   You said “That’s a fun special pleading fallacy.”
   Either prove it! or take back your words. (That’s what being intellectually honest means).

   
   
   

   IF you really are HONEST. Bring back my statements “with quotes” that i claimed otherwise, to what was mentioned in my “previous” reply “to” you.
   or either prove that i am still committing a “special pleading argument”

   
   
   

   Next reply of yours, IF it does not address this, will be deleted. I don’t like to waste my time responding to red-herrings or side-tracks. And i especially don’t like your attitude of giving “false impression” to the readers.

   
   
   

   Atheist:

   
   

   “Already did. Here is my post again, in reference to your reply to the original question.

   
   

   So, let’s get this straight, are you actually NOT claiming that God is uncaused? The ONLY uncaused cause? If you are claiming that he is, the special pleading is obvious. If you aren’t, you should rethink your post.”
   
   I note that you never actually answered my question.
   
   My reply: What did you do here, precisely? You said “a) either you are making a special pleading fallacy” OR “ b) Your post is implying it”

   
   

   
   

   
   

   We don’t call Allah (swt) a cause because we have no permitted narration to state so. (I know this comes from my system of beliefs and “Not from logical principles”) What we say is, HE is the “Creator” of causes and effects and this depends on “LOGICAL principles and premises”.

   
   

   (I believe you were sincerely looking for an answer, that’s why i answered this but please note this is not part of the original argument that’s why i didn’t bother to answer it).

   More over we state,
   1) Everything that BEGINS TO exist must require a cause.
   
   2) God is not something that began to exist. He is a necessary existent Being.
   
   3) Therefore GOD does not require a cause.
   
   All three premises have been proven through deductive,rational mode of argument.
   
   

   We don't say EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS REQUIRES A CAUSE. Excluding “GOD” from this rule would then BE a special pleading fallacy.

   
   

   
   

   "A curious case of a Straw-man"

   This is where things got interesting:

   Atheist says: "So, you are claiming that everything that has a beginning has a cause and everything that exists or existed has a beginning with the sole exception of a god, using only an argument from incredulity fallacy as your justification and you still don’t see how that exception makes it a special pleading? Really?"
   
   
   My reply: Let's put your argument in Logical manner.
   
   1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.I agree with him here.
   
   2)Everything that exists or existed has a beginning with the sole exception of a God.Notice how he has manipulated the words and tried to place it in my mouth.
   
   Does my argument anywhere in the blog claim " Everything that exists has a beginning"?
   This is a Straw-man Argument. 
   A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw-man."
   
   Be very cautious of these diversion tactics coming from atheists.
   
   Atheist says "using only an argument from incredulity fallacy as your justification."
   My reply: This was again a straw-man argument. Clearly he has no idea pertaining to "Why" must the "Creator" be Necessary existent. He thinks that we say this without any reasonable justification.
   

   So here is the justification and it is also a rational necessity why He must be "necessary existent":

   1) If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within space time [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible because infinity can not end. That would be a contradiction in terms. If it ends, it can never be infinite. If it is infinite, it can never end. You would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of beginnings and endings. This is like a car, if it needs to move from A to B, and the condition for its reaching its destination happens to be the concluding of its wheels rotating an infinite amount of times — in such a scenario for it to reach its destination is clearly impossible, since you would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of rotations. Anything dependent on this can never have a chance to occur.
   
   2)At this point, our opponent will say something along the lines of the following: “Fair enough. We do not entertain an infinite regress. We have our reasons for this. According to us, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no space time. Existence and causality can not occur independent of space time. Therefore, the journey stops at this event. If you want to continue the journey beyond this point, you must bring proof”.
   
   3)We will reply thus: Your stopping of the journey itself at any finite time in the past [based on whatever consideration] does nothing to remove the absurdity we are highlighting.8
   If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? 13.7 billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Same complete silence. So you see, making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination. The need attached to each and every unit remains unfulfilled, including the need attached to the very first unit in the series.
   

   4)In utter desperation, he or she will now ask, “OK, you tell us, what happened? You will inadvertently say, ‘there was an Entity in the background all along (God) who pulled the trigger for the first soldier’. Where did this Entity come from? He was never part of the equation. This is absurd. If you can entertain this absurdity, I can claim that the very first unit in the series occurred causelessly. What’s the difference?”
   We will respectfully remind them at this point that we are still discussing their side of the disjunction. There are no soldiers for us, as will become clear very shortly. Be patient. This whole analogy was carefully tailored to reflect only our adversary’s notions of existence and causality, namely that both causality and existence cannot occur independent of space time. This is why there is no such Entity as part of the equation. We are not being gratuitous. Not at all.
   5)We claim there is absolutely no solution to this problem according to the principles held to be true according to the adversary, namely that causality and existence cannot occur independent of space time. As for the question of whether positing a first cause is a viable position, in and of itself, and if an agnostic chooses to forgo their principles (of space time dependency) and entertains “transcendence” solely in order to terminate the infinite regress, while of course claiming that the Entity is simply transcendent and beyond space time (in order to differentiate him from the rest of the soldiers), though life-less and unconscious… will such a positing undermine our fifth premise which states that the cause for the hand-movement is not a contingent cause? In other words, what problem is there in having an Entity set the series of contingent causes into motion at a particular point in time (for ease of reference, let’s choose the Big Bang singularity), and then have the contingent causes bring about their effects, one after the other, eventually leading to the movement of my hand? Moreover, why does this Entity need to be alive, or posses any consciousness? Perhaps he triggered the chain reaction inadvertently?
   This is an important question. We will address this below:
   6)We contest the notion that mere transcendence (being outside space time) is sufficient in terminating the infinite regress. Rather what is required is “necessary existence”. This was intended to be explained at stage 6, but we see no option but to exhaust the issue right here at premise 5. We thus begin:
   The very first event in the series of contingent causes occurred, configured with a specific configuration of certain attributes, such as location, precise moment of existence, intensity, duration, etc. Take the time aspect for instance: The event occurred at a particular point in time which has been traced back to approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We argue that in the mind’s eye it was conceivable for this to have occurred before or after its actual time by an almost infinite amount of moments in either direction. All such moments were equal. There was nothing in the very nature of the event which required for it to come to be at its specific moment (otherwise, we would not have been able to even conceive other possible moments), nor was there anything within its very nature requiring for it to not exist at this moment (because impossible things do not happen). All moments were thus equal in relation to its very nature. Now, when it did occur at its specific moment, this must have been on account of an attribute within the Being that caused it which specified one of an almost infinite amount of moments above all others. We will call this attribute “will”, constitutive of which is “life”. Claiming that the Entity caused the chain reaction of contingent causes without being alive, or without possessing will, is absurd, because it entails a contradiction of non-equality within the total possible moments, all of which were deemed equal. Thus there must have been will, constitutive of which is life. So the attribute by which the actual coming into existence of the first event occurred is “power”, and the attribute by which the attributes of that event (location, moment of existence, intensity, duration, etc.) were specified is “will”. Moreover, an Entity capable of creating based on specification can not create what He does not “know”. We thus have the four attributes of life, power, will and knowledge. These are all necessary. Without them, the infinite regress cannot be terminated.
   7) By the admission of the agnostic, transcendence was a requirement for terminating the regress. In addition to that, we have shown in the previous paragraph that the Entity must also have been alive, willing and knowing. Otherwise, He could not have caused the first event in order to trigger the chain reaction. We further argue, that the power, will, and knowledge of this Entity cannot have been restricted only to the first event, but rather, by rational necessity, these attributes must also be “perfect”. By perfection, we mean they must extend to all the subsequent contingent events in the chain leading up to the movement of my hand. Otherwise, positing that the four attributes are restricted to only the first event would disqualify this Entity from its role in terminating the regress, because He would then need another Entity in order to specify the application of His attributes to the first event and prevent them from applying to all others, in which case He would not be the Entity we were seeking. He would just be another contingent being posited outside space time. The regress would thus continue without being terminated. He wouldn’t be able to end the regress, rather he would just contribute to extending it.
   8) Since for the very termination of the regress it is absolutely necessary for the Entity to have not only brought the first event into existence, but also all other subsequent events, it now becomes clear that it is absurd to posit a first cause outside space time which brought about the first event but remained disassociated from all others. Our premise that the cause for this hand-movement was not a contingent cause thus holds true.