Strike #2 for Prof. Philosophy

[JillPole]

Last week my philosophy professor made a comment in class about there being no logical argument for the existence of God. So, I purposely talked with him after class and began a discussion on Causality. I talked to a few of you in paltalk one night about this even... Well, I did some studying on my own because he brought up some interesting objections. But then this week in class his opening lecture was a rebuttle on how Sarah (that's me, I know, I bet you all thought my name was Jill, didn't you? How sad.) is wrong about causality and that it really doesn't work at all. He then went on to talk about virgin birth, intelligent design and somewhere in the mix claimed God as a "she." Maybe I'm a little bias because I've already got an attitude about him because of his "apology means I'm sorry" blunder, but I thought the whole thing was a bit rude. He took a conversation we had outside of class and then ripped it up in class where I had no control over defending myself. I did make an objection to his causality rant: he said the universe could always have existed, I said the 2nd law of thermodynamics says the unvierse is running down and so it had to have been wound up, meaning it had a begining. He didn't really address that very well, so I sat quietly and smiled for the rest of the hour while the discussion tore apart everything but Intelligent Design, which he said was probably a good argument, but given the previously faulty arguments we (the class) must be left to make up our own decision on how trustworthy it was.

Anyway, that's my rant in one long paragraph. I'm allowed to.

[Captain Ochre]

Last week my philosophy professor made a comment in class about there being no logical argument for the existence of God. So, I purposely talked with him after class and began a discussion on Causality. I talked to a few of you in paltalk one night about this even... Well, I did some studying on my own because he brought up some interesting objections. But then this week in class his opening lecture was a rebuttle on how Sarah (that's me, I know, I bet you all thought my name was Jill, didn't you? How sad.) is wrong about causality and that it really doesn't work at all. He then went on to talk about virgin birth, intelligent design and somewhere in the mix claimed God as a "she." Maybe I'm a little bias because I've already got an attitude about him because of his "apology means I'm sorry" blunder, but I thought the whole thing was a bit rude. He took a conversation we had outside of class and then ripped it up in class where I had no control over defending myself. I did make an objection to his causality rant: he said the universe could always have existed, I said the 2nd law of thermodynamics says the unvierse is running down and so it had to have been wound up, meaning it had a begining. He didn't really address that very well, so I sat quietly and smiled for the rest of the hour while the discussion tore apart everything but Intelligent Design, which he said was probably a good argument, but given the previously faulty arguments we (the class) must be left to make up our own decision on how trustworthy it was.

Anyway, that's my rant in one long paragraph. I'm allowed to.

Huh. Sounds like he's got an agenda if he brought up your name along with the argument.

What was his objection to the argument regarding causality? Are you able to reproduce the essence of it?

You may have a tough time getting a fair grade from this guy. Be careful, depending on how important your grade is to you.

[JillPole]

Oh he gives me the A's I deserve, so far anyway, lol. The discussion I had was basically like this:
I said: if something exists, shouldn't there be a cause outside of it causing it to exist?
his objection: Why doesn't the cause need a cause?

In class he mentioned I had an interesting view point, explained it and continued to tear it down, a more intense version of the discussion outside of class. I offered a suggestion I heard from someone here, that since the universe began to exist it had a cause, the cause didn't begin to exist. He said if I argued that way then he could argue that the universe didn't begin to exist. I told him that the universe is running down, and that since time exists and we are moving through it, both time and the universe had a begin and therefore have a cause. He said that if the cause can pause in time then why couldn't time pause in time? I didn't really understand what that meant because when you say the word "pause" it presupposes a time to be paused in, and therefore presupposes a begining, which a pause can't have and so a cause can't be "paused." But I thought that was being too argumentative for a classroom so simply backed out, and from there he went on to the virgin birth and such.

[Captain Ochre]

Oh he gives me the A's I deserve, so far anyway, lol. The discussion I had was basically like this:
I said: if something exists, shouldn't there be a cause outside of it causing it to exist?
his objection: Why doesn't the cause need a cause?

His objection seems legitimate even if it's answerable, as I happen to hold.

In class he mentioned I had an interesting view point, explained it and continued to tear it down, a more intense version of the discussion outside of class. I offered a suggestion I heard from someone here, that since the universe began to exist it had a cause, the cause didn't begin to exist. He said if I argued that way then he could argue that the universe didn't begin to exist.

He's right that he can argue that way--but it's not a particularly reasonable argument.
Your distinction regarding something beginning to exist is important. Get him to admit that if something begins to exist then it has a cause. That frames the rest of the debate.

I told him that the universe is running down, and that since time exists and we are moving through it, both time and the universe had a begin and therefore have a cause. He said that if the cause can pause in time then why couldn't time pause in time?

I'd ask him in turn what can cause something that has paused in time to unpause in time--but I'd come right back to the notion of something having a cause if it begins to exist. A universe might exist in stasis, but how does a universe in stasis cease being static without transcendent help?

I didn't really understand what that meant because when you say the word "pause" it presupposes a time to be paused in, and therefore presupposes a begining, which a pause can't have and so a cause can't be "paused."

I'd cut him a break on his turn of phrase (as one of the hazards of speaking extemporaneously). Time is a tricky beast, and what he said sounds incoherent at first blush.

But I thought that was being too argumentative for a classroom so simply backed out, and from there he went on to the virgin birth and such.

Careful, or I'll try to get you to repeat what he said on those other subjects.


Sorry, don't mean to derail your thread--it's just that I find this sort of thing intensely interesting.

[Minnesota]

You should (I hate when people tell me I "should do this or that," but anyway) feel flattered that he thought your point good enough to spend a class hour on, even if it was to show where you were wrong. You deserve the A you got.

[JillPole]

Well, it didn't really feel flattering... I got the A because of Plato not because of my bringing up causality after class had ended. It sort of seemed tricky to me, he must have known that I waited purposely until we were outside of class to bring up the argument so the class didn't get disrupted. I don't know... I'm just not liking the whole situation very much. I'm almost nervous to speak up in class.

on a side note, I think all this is really out of my league. Usually when I start things in class I'm fairly sure I can follow through with them. But in this class when I make objections it takes an aweful lot of effort to defend them.

[Piebald]

Yes, it does seem rather disengenuous. He might not be malicious, though, he might just be a boor.

What on earth does the Virgin conception have to do with causality, though?

[JillPole]

I'm not quite sure what Mary had to do with causality... something started an, "if we're all born into sin, and Jesus was born of Mary, wasn't he born into sin?" objection... I think it was just a way to discredit the Bible... I dunno.

The guys not being mean about it... He jokes around half the time and smiles when he says things. That doesn't make what he says and does any nicer though. It actually frustrates me more because if you say, "So reasonably, it looks like God doesn't exist" with a smile, it makes it seem trivial and true. Which it is neither... heh... sorry... I like to rant.

[Minnesota]

But in this class when I make objections it takes an aweful lot of effort to defend them.

The point of going to class is to learn, not to win arguments. So if you cannot defend a position, you might want to consider that it has no defense, or that until you learn more (the reason for going to school) it would be best to at least provisionally accept the argument given you until you do have a defense. Taking a stance on any issue should ultimately rest on a conviction arrived at by a consideration of the facts at hand. So, if such a position can be shown to be in error or indefensible then the mature response is to admit you are wrong. Take it up later if new information warrants it, but don't knock yourself out when you know you aren't up to the task.

[JillPole]

heh... maybe I worded that wrong. I didn't mean to make it sound like I just object over everything and don't think things through. I think things through, and when something comes up in a class (or life) that I don't necessarily agree with, I offer my opinion. Philosophy is over my head, though. I can think my opinions through, and yet there's more questions. But maybe you're right; maybe I shouldn't speak the entire semester. I'm sure that would solve any problem of my opinion being taken the wrong way or having to hear a lecture on how inherantly wrong I am.

[Minnesota]

But maybe you're right; maybe I shouldn't speak the entire semester. I'm sure that would solve any problem of my opinion being taken the wrong way or having to hear a lecture on how inherantly wrong I am.

Of course, I hardly implied any such thing, so I have to wonder why you bothered mentioning it. But, if what the instructor is criticizing is your opinion rather than a misunderstanding of fact, then you may well want to watch your tongue. Instructors aren't too keen to entertain opinions from relatively "uninformed" students for obvious (I hope) reasons. If you couch your thoughts in the form of a question rather than an assertion you might fair better. Just a suggestion.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Oh he gives me the A's I deserve, so far anyway, lol. The discussion I had was basically like this:
I said: if something exists, shouldn't there be a cause outside of it causing it to exist?
his objection: Why doesn't the cause need a cause?

In class he mentioned I had an interesting view point, explained it and continued to tear it down, a more intense version of the discussion outside of class. I offered a suggestion I heard from someone here, that since the universe began to exist it had a cause, the cause didn't begin to exist. He said if I argued that way then he could argue that the universe didn't begin to exist. I told him that the universe is running down, and that since time exists and we are moving through it, both time and the universe had a begin and therefore have a cause. He said that if the cause can pause in time then why couldn't time pause in time? I didn't really understand what that meant because when you say the word "pause" it presupposes a time to be paused in, and therefore presupposes a begining, which a pause can't have and so a cause can't be "paused." But I thought that was being too argumentative for a classroom so simply backed out, and from there he went on to the virgin birth and such.

Lets look at some of your assumptions when it comes to 'first cause' and also for the second law of thermodyanimcs.

1) The logic only demonstrates that there are effects without cause. The
quantum mechanics has some indications that thiere are non-causual
events.
2) If there is a primal cause, you are making the logical fallacy of 'special pleading' to assign that first cause to 'God'. Why should this first cause
have intelligence and purpose?

When it comes to the second law of thermodyanmics.. It only deals with heat transfer in a closed system. Can you tell me without a shadow of a doubt that the universe is a 'closed system'? Right now, we have insufficent information about the cause of the visible universe known as the
"Big Bang". There are some theories that interesting, and we will be able
to test once the new partical accelerator is finished in Europe. Trying to use the second law of thermodyancs to 'prove' god is basically using the
'God of the Gaps' .

I think it was a tad tacky of him to go into 'virgin' birth, and other beliefs like that, since that particularly targeted a specific religion. I think mere pointing out the flaws in the various philosphical arguments for a deity in general is invalid would have sufficed. After all, while there can be no logical arguements FOR the existance of a god, there can be no real logical arguments AGAINST the existance for a god either.

[JillPole]

Sacrificial Ram: Causality does not prove the existence of the God of the Bible: an intelligent, good, creator. That's not what I was trying to do. It's a theistic argument, not a Christian argument. Keep in mind, not all theists are Christian. But, if you lable the cause as God, then you've proven the existence of God as a cause.

And again, I've already said that my own argument and discussion with this professor has gone out of my league. I can't answer it all, when he brought it up outside of class I was merely giving an option he hadn't yet brought up himself.

I've begun to realize that I'm behaving quite like a child that's not getting it's own way. I can't argue well, since I'm not on the same level as my professor, and he insists on bringing my outside discussions into class, making him untrustworthy. And so I, like a child, complain and whine. I think the best solution is to just say, I have one opion, and he, along with everyone else, has his. I will only answer questions concerning the Republic (which we are supposed to be discussing, but never quite do) in or outside of class, and hope that he doesn't direct any more discussions/questions/lectures at me.

[c0bra]

The point of going to class is to learn, not to win arguments. So if you cannot defend a position, you might want to consider that it has no defense

She couldn't defend her position while in class because he had the microphone/lectern/desk.

[Benster]

Unfortunate that he would make you feel uncomfortable in class. He better watch out. OTOH, it really means you are one of the bright sparks. Take pride that he considers you seriously enough to address your arguments with the rest of the class. Now:

"I said the 2nd law of thermodynamics says the unvierse is running down and so it had to have been wound up, meaning it had a begining."

No. The law says something about the way the universe is. It does not address how that universe came to be. The universe did not have to be wound up.

True, you can project, back in time, to the big bang, and extrapolate that the universe must have been in the maximum ordered state at that time, at least relative to how it is now. But then, the problem is that there is no solid theory about how the big bang came to be. It could have been that it was the result of an earlier shrinking, a la black hole, and so a maximum entropy situation somehow became very low again (totally countering the 2nd law), before it increased. We do not know why the big bang happened. The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us the trend of the universe right now. Nothing more.

Incidentally, I would question why you believe in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at all, since it predicts the descent of the universe into chaos and disorder. No ultimate fate except maximum death to all! It is the law of the devil! Reject it. There is little penalty!