Infinite Nested Russian Dolls, etc.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Hey viole,

So, since I am unfamiliar with the Russian Dolls model, and since our last conversation didn't end on the best note, I thought I'd extend an olive branch invite you to showcase your brains and teach me about this model.

Could you please? I'm interested to hear about it.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Hi OESD

Glad you are not mad. I know I can be a petulant pain sometimes; my atheist husband agrees with you on this one.

Naw, we're cool. You're a good sport and I appreciate that, and I do learn a lot from our interactions.

Thanks for the reply, too. I'm going to go over it in detail and I'll probably have a few follow up questions if you don't mind but I just have something I have to tidy up here before I do so I apologize in advance for any delay in responding but I might not be able to follow up until Monday, if that's OK.

Thanks again,

OESD

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I was probably led by your analogy of an interval of time encapsulated within another (the double stopwatch analogy). This analogy has for me meaning only if a time context is given for both watches. In order to make sense of a universe that "begins" equipped with its own time context, we need to postulate the existence of an encapsulating meta-universe which provides an external time context in which the causality of the baby universe can be defined (stopwatch A).

If we do not want to simply defer the problem to the encapsulating universe, we need a universe that encapsulates the meta-universe, and so on. This is the recursive universe (as expected by the chaotic eternal inflation model, for instance) and it looks like a set of infinite Russian dolls each containing another one.

OK, I've got a second here.

I see what you're saying, but this is a false dichotomy.

The reason why is that in order for this to be true we'd have to assiume that the 'meta-universe' had the exact same properties and limitations of the universe. However, in the cumulative case for theism, the whole point is that whatever transcends our physical time is timeless in that it's not bound by the same properties and restrictions we observe here.

This is not compounding postulates, it's actually reducing them if you follow the lines of argumentation.

Theisms states that whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause.

Since contemporary physics agrees the universe began to exist this deductive argument simply unpacks the logical and inescapable conclusion of the premise, which is supported by the evidence. Any competing theory must have the evidential support that you yourself have admitted is wanting to date, so to date this is the best explaination of the evidence.

Since the universe is the space-time continuum, this cause must necessarily transcend physical time and space.

OK, so we've been over all this before, but it was necessary to restate since at this point we're caught up to the current conversation.

So if we deductively reach a cause that transcends time and space the cause is physically timeless, so there's very good reason to suppose that whatever transcends physical time and space is not bound by the properties and limitations of that which it transcends. That's actually the whole nature of transcendence is that it's not bound by the properties it transcends.

Therefore the nested Russian Dolls model is neither necessary nor intuitive. It would be compounding postulates to impose the properties and limiations of physical time on whatever transcends physical time, which could be eternal.

At that point the stopwatch analogy comes in, but perhaps a better analogy would be if you found stopwatch A was just going and looping or whatever but basically just going indefinitly and at some point you started stopwatch B and stoped on minute later, but left stopwatch A still going. The point being that it doesn't seem to me too difficult envision a finite time can begin and end within a wider, transcendent framework.

So, you only have to compound postulates if you try to tack on the counter-intuitive assumption of the transfer of physical properties to that which transcends the physical and therefore I think we have a fallacy of false alternatives in trying to reduce the intial starting point of the universe to such a nested dolls model vs. the argument from ignorance which doesn't even try to find the best explaination.

In light of that, I can't say that I find the conclusion compelling and I'd have to stick to my argument as the best explaination in that it simply deductively unpacks the premise that is best supported by the evidence, to its logical and inescapable conclusion without compounding postulates unnecessarily.

Particularily when you widen the scope of the examination of reailty. Theism posits a necessary, intelligent, immaterial, timeless cause, and atheism posits that all things are the result of unguided natural forces.

If you start by examining cosmology, if theism does offer an explaination of the evidence and atheism offers the argument from ignorance (namely we don't know and we can't know so we assume we know that nature did it), and extend to teleology where theism's explaination makes perfect sense of the teleological argument but atheism has to start adding postulates to the cosmological argument, and then we move to the biological argument (that a-biogenesis has never been observed and the statistical problems of unguided evolution) and the theistic argument remains the same but the atheist argument has to continue to compound postulates, and so forth with the moral argument and so on - it accounts for everything we do know, and does so very coherently and succinctly, so while theism offers the best explaination because it does not compound postulates beyond necessity, atheism seems to offer compounding (often contradictory) postulates from what we don't know (i.e. ignorance) it seems that atheims just shrugs it's shoulders and says 'Nature did it' despite the evidence.

For me, the boundary condition of the cosmological argument, in the modern form offered by by Dr.Craig, presents insurmountable difficulties. Even if we neglect for a moment the fact that we have uncaused beginnings in our universe, to transfer qualities like "everything that begins to exist has a cause" to the container of "everything" (the universe) suffers from the composition fallacy. In other words, it cannot be used to prove that God made it or that the universe has been caused by a natural event in an encapsulating meta-universe.

It actually isn't a composition fallacy.

If you say that each square inch of an elephant is easy for you to lift, therefore you can lift a whole elephant that is a composition fallacy because the properties of the individual are not reflective of the properties of the whole. But if you say, each inch of an elephant is subject to gravity, as is the whole elephant, that is not a composition fallacy at all.

The space time continuum is not simply a container of space and time, it is simply all that which is space and time, and in space and time we know that out of nothing nothing comes.

It is far more accurate therefore to say that if a you have a floor, and that floor is entirely composed of brown flooring then the floor is brown. It is by necessity and that's no contradiction because in such a case what's necessarily true of each part is necessarily true of the whole.

The point I have in all such discussions is not to disprove God, but to disprove that you can prove Him..It is possible to disprove a certain version of God if there are inherent contradictions in His definition ( and I think the Christian God presents doctrinal contradictions), but a general rejection a-priori of a not well specified God is not possible.

Proof of course is not exactly the issue, but if there are good reasons to suppose there is a God and no good reasons to reject the case for God, then the Christian is well within their rational rights to accept their personal expereince of God, and I think the arguments furnish the Christian with more than ample reason to suppose their experience is correct, since as I believe I showed above we don't argue from ignorance as seems to be the competing explaination, and if you don't compound the postulate of trying to figure how you can impose the properties and limitations of physical time on that which transcends physical time, then I think ours is the best explanation of the evidence.

That is what I mean when I say that the supporters of the cosmological argument are like marathon runners; even if they managed the first mile, by proving God's existence, they are left with many miles to run before they can prove that this God is the Christian one.

Most certainly. The arugment was never designed to prove the Christian God, but if it's the best explanation for the evidence then that's a huge concession on the part of the atheist and is most certainly a marathon that I'm prepared to run, "Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize" (1 Cor. 9:24); "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15) - I'm still working on that last part

When I was a Christian I was convinced that thinking to know exactly what God is and how He thinks, was equivalent to idolatry. But if we think about it, my Christianity was non-sensical with this precondition; either I know exactly that God is the Christian one with all the strings attached (idolatry, according to my thinking) or I have to drop any hope to understand Him making myself a non-Christian de-facto.

Once again, I'm going to have to challenge that as a false dichotomy. God has revealed His will to us according to His word, "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool" (Isaiah 1:18).

In this Word He proclaims there are things we can know about Him "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

Everything we need to know about Him is available to us, including that we need Jesus for our salvation.

That's what makes Him the Christian God and he has furnished us with all the necessary information to know that wholly apart from speculation (idolatry), so again I'd have to challenge that as false dichotomy.

Anyways, thanks again for the explaination!

[~candice~]

Interesting thread folks I'll be back soon.

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Viole,

I've been meaning to ask you, have you seen Opeth live?

The point I have in all such discussions is not to disprove God, but to disprove that you can prove Him: I can use the same rebuttals against a necessary causal naturalistic origin of our universe.

I'd like to focus on the statement you made above, because I think in a way it really forms the crux of why I think Christians sometimes get frustrated with atheists and I think it actually does a disservice to atheism in general. I'm going to speak frankly here, not because I want to provoke an argument or because I want to be controversial, but because I think it needs to be said:

If atheists think that all they need to do to defend atheism is come up with possibilities that negate the premises of theistic arguments, then they simply do not understand reason and argumentation. I'm aware that this is a strong statement, but I see this mentality all the time, that in order to shut down the cosmological argument, all you need to do is come up with a way to negate either premise, be it the breakdown of cause and effect, or an eternal universe of some sort. Or, in order to shut down the teleological argument, all you need to do is come up with some possible explanation for the illusion of design.

Theistic arguments aren't proofs for God. Any Christian who understands there arguments will tell you that you can't prove the existence of God. In fact very few things in life can actually be proven without any sort of doubt whatsoever. That's precisely why courtrooms use terms like beyond reasonable doubt, and philosophers use terms like justified belief, properly basic truths etc.

So really, if your aim is as trivial as trying to show that God cannot be proven, then we already agree on that. No need for debate. We freely admit that.

Neither the cosmological argument, nor the teleological argument, nor the argument from moral values and duties, or any argument for God, proves God. So there, if that was your goal, then mission accomplished. These things are called "arguments" because if they were proofs, it would be the "Kalam Cosmological Proof", the "Teleological proof" etc.

And I'm not picking on you here, Viole. Most atheists seem to do this. They come here saying, "I really want to believe in God, but I have trouble with ____________ (insert objection here)" The atheist then sits back, listens to arguments and simply comes up with possible denials of the premises. "Maybe the disciples lied or were deluded", "morality could have evolved", "why the Christian God and not Allah?", etc. etc.

I submit that doing so does not make a person rational. Coming up with possible denials are easy, because possibilities come cheap.

This tactic can be applied to dismiss almost anything, since as I mentioned, there are very few things in life that aren't susceptible to hyperscepticism. You'd have a hard time trying to prove to me that atheists exist, if you have to come up with argument and all I need to do is dream up possible denials.

Does that make me more rational, because I can shoot down all your arguments for the existence of atheists with the possibility of sollipsism? No, it doesn't.

Here's the thing, and if you understand this, you'll understand us a little better, and I promise you, that our discussion will be a lot more fruitful.

We do not believe that God can be proven. We offer these arguments because we believe them to be good arguments.

What is a good argument? A good argument is an argument where the premises are more reasonable than their denials. Now, you could turn this into a debate about, "how do we know what is reasonable?" or "what's reasonable in your eyes, isn't necessarily(again appealing to possible denial) reasonable", and I would fully accept it, and say "yes, you're absolutely correct". Reasonableness cannot be proven, so reasonableness itself is contingent upon reasonableness. I believe that you are reasonable, and that's why I'm appealing to you to think about the arguments and evaluate them for what they are, instead of trying to show what everybody already knows, which is that arguments aren't proofs. Doing so simply misses the point of the arguments, and results in those involved in discussions speaking past each other.

The bottomline is this.

There is a shared set of evidence (the cosmos, complex life, morality, etc.). All worldviews have access to this evidence, but all worldviews also have the responsibility to explain the evidence.

The more reasonable worldview is the one that better explains the evidence. If atheism is 1% better at explaining the evidence, then it is more reasonable to hold atheism as true. Conversely if Christianity is 1% better at explaning the evidence, then Christianity is more reasonable to hold. We're not arrogant enough to think we can prove God, we simply believe that given the cumulative cases, Christianity is a more reasonable belief than atheism.

Thanks for reading this. Again I didn't want to rant, and I hope this doesn't come across as a rant. I just wanted to get this off my chest in the hopes that it will clarify our position a little better.

Also know, that I'm not interested in rehashing the KCA, or the moral argument etc. in this thread. This post is not an argument in itself, but instead it's about arguments.

God bless.

[Guest]

.... If atheists think that all they need to do to defend atheism is come up with possibilities that negate the premises of theistic arguments, then they simply do not understand reason and argumentation....

.... theistic arguments aren't proofs for God. Any Christian who understands their arguments will tell you that you can't prove the existence of God....

.... In fact very few things in life can actually be proven without any sort of doubt whatsoever....

.... So really, if your aim is as trivial as trying to show that God cannot be proven, then we already agree on that. No need for debate. We freely admit that....

.... Neither the cosmological argument, nor the teleological argument, nor the argument from moral values and duties, or any argument for God, proves God. So there, if that was your goal, then mission accomplished....

God bless....

It's Love

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:1-3

And Love Is

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

As Love Does

Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him. Job 13:15

As Any Lover Understands

And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Matthew 8:2

~

Believed And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Viole,

Opeth manage to organize gigs always in a time space region that has a big distance from my current location. Lol. Did you attent one of their concerts? I just love their music, especially the first albums (with the death growls). I find it fascinating how they manage to integrate beauty, sweetness and sheer brutality in the same song (try the live version of "under the weeping moon" from the Roadhouse tapes).

Oh, ok. I wonder if they'd really be that engaging live.

I also preferred the first few albums. With their Still Life album they lost me.

I am not interested in finding faulty arguments to destroy theism. I am interested in finding faulty arguments (including mine), period. A big percentage of my time is devoted in finding conclusions drawn from faulty or incomplete premises; this is particularly important in my job.

Viole, who teaches atheists to pretend to be cold hard logic machines? These noble-sounding mantras are so far beyond actual arguments forwarded by many atheists that I'm beginning to wonder it is isn't part of a propaganda campaign. If I had a buck for everytime an atheist brags about their logical ability, only to fail at the starting gates, I'd have a large number of bucks.

Here are two fine examples:

I am not sure that your view of the different arguments is shared by all apologisst (good arguments, not proofs). Sophisticated theologians like Plantignga share your view, but others like Craig believe they found a logic proof of God. He just says too many "inescapable conclusion" , "undeniable proof" etc. to make me think otherwise.

You disagree that my view that God cannot be proven is shared by "ALL apologists"? Where did I offer the view as that of "ALL apologists"? A Strawman, seperated from the "I'm super rational" bluster by a single sentence.

See what I mean?

This is followed by you basing the notion that William Lane Craig believes God can be proven with 100% certainty on the notion that he allegedly says "inescapable conclusion", "undeniable proof" a lot?

Can you offer an example of William Lane Craig claiming that God can be proven with 100% certainty? If you can't offer an example, then where the cold hard logical Viole you keep referring to?

A very simple premise like "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is in a superposition of physical/metaphysical states. The empirical power is derived from observation of things that happen in the universe (forgetting for a moment that there are things that begin to exist in our universe, for which no cause can be defined); and then, with a sleigh of hand, the same property is applied to the container of the caused events. We have no empirical or logical support to assume that the set of events having property P also has property P. Sometimes composition works (the set of all sets is also a set), sometimes it doesn't (the set of all green apples is not a green apple).

Can I use empirical properties to derive metaphysical consequences? I do not see how. If that was the case, I could derive materialistic conclusions concerning God Himself. I can for instance use premises like

- everything that has conscious properties (a mind) has a physical energy burning brain

- everything that begins to exists transforms pre-existing energy

- every conscious decision requires a time frame to support mental state changes and acts of volition or, equivalently, state changes determine the time frame. This one is for me difficult to rationalize. How can God provide a context in which things change without changing himself? Looks like first causes, like the decision of creating the universe, begin to exist, too, and, therefore, must be also caused, contradicting their attribute of being first.

etc.

Cause and effect IS a meta-physical concept (unless you're prepared to show me an instance of cause and effect, not to be confused with an example of cause and effect), so the objection that this is a composition fallacy fails. In fact it seems to be a category mistake of your part.

Your usual objection that you can't imagine causation prior to the existence of time, is an argument from personal incredulity. What rational justification can you offer for the notion that time is a necessary condition for causation? For every theorectical model that specifies time as necessary there are theoretical models specifying time as emergent. So really, your entire case against the KCA seems to rest on a priori restrictions that you're forcing without any reasonable justification.

This is further evidenced by the fact that, before Big Bang cosmology came about most atheists took exception with the second premise of the KCA (hoping that the universe would be eternal).

It's only once science has supported the second premise, that sceptics have started attacking the first premise. This to me is a strong indication that the problem isn't with either premise, but rather the conclusion ("God exists").

Furthermore, physicists at the forefront of cosmology are scrambling to provide a non-divine cause for the universe, so if the KCA was such a weak argument, one wonders why so many theoretical physicists such as Hawking are so desperately trying to find a cause for the universe (that isn't God), such as relying on the Law of gravity to do the heavy lifting.

My honest opinion is that if materialists could find a cause for the universe that isn't God, they'd happily embrace both premises of the KCA. Neither premise is unreasonable and it seems deep down they know it.

Either way, I really don't have time for another round-about with the KCA. My point was simply that your initial statement, "The point I have in all such discussions is not to disprove God, but to disprove that you can prove Him..." was a triviality that both parties agree on (and for which you offered no valid counter except for the strawman and the assertion about Craig).

I also said that for atheists to build their entire case on the unprovability of God to justify denying God seems to be rather shallow, since coming up with possible denials to virtually any premise are the easiest thing in the world to do. As such it seems atheism, despite all its noble claims, seems more into exploiting gaps in epistomology, than actually embracing reason.

Thanks for the chat though, perhaps we'll bang heads again at some stage

[LuftWaffle]

Thanks for the chat though, perhaps we'll bang heads again at some stage

Well, if we both like Opeth, it is normal to bang heads.

Ciao

- viole

I Haven't listened to "Orchid" in aaaages. Actually spinning it now in my CD player.

I'll check out that roadhouse tapes version of "Under the weeping moon".

Do you play any musical instruments? Most metalheads tend to be musicians themselves...

[LuftWaffle]

Technically, I am not a metal head. I even like some country music, lol.

I like Johnny Cash, does that count?

My main musical focus is prog rock and I also like some progressive Christian music (e.g. Neil Morse).

nah, too mellow for me

I only hate hip hop, disco and commercial stuff like lady gaga, and any singer who sings like he was sitting on a bowl of honey.

What does somebody sing like when they sit on bowl of honey?

Do you include "Rage against the machine" in hip hop? I like the song "Maggie's Farm". That song kinda conjours up images of driving a big old American car through the Karoo.

Ditto on Lady Gaga, and other rebel-conformists like her, including Manson, Eminem etc. I don't like posers and I find that many pop artists nowadays portray this bad - rebel attitude, but in the end they're promoting precisely whatever values the rulers of the industry (MTV, etc.) promote. Kids listen to this thinking they're breaking molds, without knowing they're being molded. That's a rant for another day though.

I used to play a Gibson les Paul when I was a teenager...

Oh really? That's awesome. I never owned a posh guitar like that. My best and favourite was an oily black Jackson with an inverted head. Not sure what model it was.

Wouldn't mind a Gibson SG though.....or another Jackson, but I haven't played in ages.

cheers

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I am not sure that your view of the different arguments is shared by all apologisst (good arguments, not proofs). Sophisticated theologians like Plantignga share your view, but others like Craig believe they found a logic proof of God. He just says too many "inescapable conclusion" , "undeniable proof" etc. to make me think otherwise.

Then you need to listen how he uses those statements in context viole.

He says that the conclusions are inescapable if (note the conditional clause here) you grant the premise, because it is simply deductive reasoning. If you grant the premise the conclusion does follow logically and inescapably, whether you like it or not, hence the reason people keep attacking the premise.

Really viole, this shows that you haven't paid enough attention to what Craig actually says. He frequently points out that all he's doing is presenting good arguments, not proofs. This is simply a straw man fallacy that you're present, and really viole it's not an educated straw man since Craig so very frequently makes this exact point.

The truth is, I am not even sure that the arguments are good arguments. I can see big holes in the first two premises of the KCA without thinking too much. I tell you what I think, just to be very open: when a premise has empirical power, then it is used as such. When it doesn't, them metaphysics comes to rescue. So, I think that we should make up our mind.

This is restricting epistemology to a self-defeating simplicity.

I've already pointed out that we only know empiricism functions due to metaphysical presuppositions so it's not that they're coming to the rescue, its that they're required at the forefront in order to validate and make any consistent and intelligible use of the empiricism.

This is a point I've brought up repeatedly. Physics was never meant to do anything more than measure the physical properties of nature, and is simply not seeking to, nor is it equipped to, explain all of reality.

This problem that you're creating only exists if you presuppose the metaphysical assumption of verificationism... so to make this restriction you're appealing to metaphysics to come to your rescue... ergo even your skepticism here is demonstrably self defeating if it requires metaphysical presuppositions and rescue to condemn metaphysical presuppositions and rescue.

So you see, your self-imposed restriction on epistemology doesn’t work. Even you don’t and can’t subscribe to it because it’s simply self defeating.

You simply must examine the physical with physical measures and the non-physical with non-physical measures, employing both inductive and deductive reasoning both empiricism and logic, the physical and the non-physical, and that simply proven by the fact that you’re appealing to both as valid even while trying to denounce on of them.

A very simple premise like "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is in a superposition of physical/metaphysical states. The empirical power is derived from observation of things that happen in the universe (forgetting for a moment that there are things that begin to exist in our universe, for which no cause can be defined); and then, with a sleigh of hand, the same property is applied to the container of the caused events.

See, I addressed that the space time continuum is not a container, but all of that which is contained. A box is a container, so a box of chocolates most certainly does not have to be made of chocolate, but when you refer to a floor that’s made of all brown parts then the floor is not a container and is necessarily brown.

See, you say that you’re interested in getting at the good and bad arguments, but you continually revert back to you bad arguments which try to make good arguments seem bad, even after we explore the specifics and demonstrate that you’re simply attacking straw men.

We have no empirical or logical support to assume that the set of events having property P also has property P. Sometimes composition works (the set of all sets is also a set), sometimes it doesn't (the set of all green apples is not a green apple).

But of course the space-time continuum is defined by the fact that it’s the stuff of space and time so that objection simply fails.

Can I use empirical properties to derive metaphysical consequences? I do not see how.

What you can do is use empirical evidence to support the premises that are used in arguments… like you’re trying to do now, and like the arguments we’re using do successfully.

Take for example the sentence you wrote above. There is no empirical support (nor could there be) for the argument you’re trying to make, but it’s based on the presupposition of the usefulness of empiricism. The usefulness of empiricism is an empirical reality, and that’s used to support your metaphysical point, so once again your argument contains a defeater (it is logically self-defeating, if successful).

If that was the case, I could derive materialistic conclusions concerning God Himself. I can for instance use premises like

- everything that has conscious properties (a mind) has a physical energy burning brain

But you don’t even seek to prove that, nor could you, since it’s something that physics could simply not confirm of disconfirm. It’s simply an assertion from ignorance, based on what you don’t know but suppose from ignorance because of an a priori assumption.

By contrast, that things don’t pop into existence out of nothing is the most successful ontological principle to which we subscribe, without which there could be no empiricism because there would be no reason to suppose physics is reliably and repeatable. Things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing, so we wouldn’t be able to suppose natural laws. It’s not from ignorance that we suppose this is true, but from necessity and to deny this presupposition is to once again defeat the premise you wish to support.

Your arguments continue to undermine that which they seek to support. A table can’t stand if you cut it’s legs off.

How can God provide a context in which things change without changing himself?

Because a personality is dynamic, and it’s simply a semantic category error to attribute the Biblically described attribute of God’s unchanging nature to some sort of static state from which effects would have to be static.

Once again, good arguments are not made from oversimplifying things to the point of inaccuracy.

Looks like first causes, like the decision of creating the universe, begin to exist, too, and, therefore, must be also caused, contradicting their attribute of being first.

So what? We’re looking for a first cause of the universe, not a first cause of the first cause.

In order to know that an explanation is the best you don’t have to have an explanation of the explanation, i.e. a cause of the cause.

If you found a poem I wrote and said, 'How did this poem come into existance?" and someone said “OES wrote it”, if you then suggested that was not possible because something could have caused me to write it, that would simply be a strange thing to say. Likewise, when archeologists find artifacts they don’t wish they could find an explanation that itself didn’t require an explanation of how such artifacts came into being. They conclude that some people-group were responsible for the artifacts even if they don’t know the exact extended history of each and every particular relating to that group.

To attempt to discount the KCA by the same reasoning is equally strange.

Once again viole, you keep pushing these demonstrably self-defeating arguments by simply ignoring all the necessary data which makes them good arguments, and therefore your arguments are straw men fallacies which are by definition bad arguments.

I can't see that you're acheiving your self-described aim of examining good argumentation, nor did you actually address Luftwaffle's point in here. Instead you demonstrably diverted from it by attacking the KCA, even though he said he was not interested in defending such things here.