hooberus:
Special pleading involves making an argument about items with specific characteristics [e.g., an "effect"], and then (without proper justification) exempting something with those same characteristics from that same argument. For example a person tries to exempt an "effect" simply because it is blue in colour.
Ok. I don't disagree with that definition. Special pleading = an insufficiently justified exclusion.
However it is not "special pleading" to point out that something not believed to have the specific characteristic/s [i.e. not an effect] need not be included in the same argument.
Agreed.
The problem with Darkl's response is that the "theistic argument" in the OP was not that "all things must have a cause", but instead more specifically that "all effects" must have a cause.
That's not a problem. It's semantics. I used them interchangebly as I've seen the argument phrased both ways from creationists. But I will grant you, they're not necessarily the same thing.
In order to demonstrate "special pleading" he needs to show that God himself would have to be be an "effect", and that he is therefore being unjustly excluded by the theist from a comprehensive argument specifically about effects, such as the one in the OP that "all effects require a cause".
Here is where you start to go wrong. I don't need to demonstrate anything about God. Nor could I (nor could anyone, for that matter). I am not making an assertion about God's nature. (Why would I attribute demonstrable"qualities" to a being that I don't believe exists?) The theists are the ones making the assertion that he is an "uncaused cause". The burden of proof rests on the theists to logically explain how he could posess such a quality, i.e. how they know he is uncaused. Otherwise, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It is the atheists here who charge that it is "special pleading" for theists to not also include God in specific written arguments about things like "effects" , etc. Hense they need to demonstrate that God should also logically be included under such categories [i.e., "an effect"] in order to substantiate their charge of special pleading.
Yes, I am making the charge of special pleading. But you are indeed shifting the burden of proof. See the stick-figure cartoon on the first page of this thread. You are asking the atheist to "prove you don't have a baseball" without providing evidence that you actually have a baseball.
If I make an argument specifically about Toyota Camrys and runaway acceleration caused by their throttle design, it is not necessarily special pleading to not include Hondas in the same argument, since Hondas do not share all of the characteristics of Toyotas. If you charge that it "special pleading" for me to not include Hondas in the same argument, then you need to demonstrate that Hondas necessarily have these same chracteristics (e.g. same throttle design), and should also be included. If you can't then you shouldn't charge special pleading.
Analogy: Fail. But let's work with it anyway. :)
The theistic argument I cited above (regardless of whether it be "effects" or "things"), was not about "Toyotas", it is along the lines of "all cars". The theistic argument is in effect saying, "All cars (not just Toyotas) are required to have 4 wheels, but not Hondas because Hondas are not cars."
That is a perfectly valid assertion if it can be demonstrated that there is a qualitative difference between a car and a Honda. If such a difference cannot be demonstrated, then it becomes special pleading because you are forced to come up with your own definition of what a "car" is, a definition that arbitrarily excludes Hondas.
Since you cannot demonstrate anything qualitative about God (or can you?), you are simply creating an arbitrary definition for God that happens to exclude him/her/it from "all things/effects".
It is not up to me to prove your definition of God incorrect. It is up to you to prove that your definition has merrit, whatever that may be. Otherwise, you are simply making an unjustifed exclusion.
The other theistic claim I cited presents an even more clear-cut case of special pleading: Life can only come from non-life.
Is God not... life? Please address this point in your response.
