Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 4:53 am
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 4:54 am by Pizza.)
At best the argument shows a thing that is not this universe wasn't the unmoved mover, could be another universe that has a different set of laws of motion than this one.
On a related note, if the universe doesn't exist within itself I don't see how it's laws of motion would apply to itself. These kinds of arguments are probably similar to if I was to argue as follows: if my heart is a muscular organ which pumps blood through the blood vessels of the circulatory system then my whole body(the whole set of parts) is a muscular organ which pumps blood through the blood vessels of the circulatory system.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 9:16 am
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 9:20 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(February 25, 2015 at 4:11 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote: The first cause could be an universe that has different laws than our universe; thus, that universe doesn't need a cause nor an explanation like things in this universe. Other natural laws are possible.
The universe cannot be a first (or more accurately primary) cause since it is already a particular contingent thing that changes. By way of contrast, the first cause must be non-contingent and unchanging.
(February 25, 2015 at 4:48 am)Alex K Wrote: ...the first cause is simply not necessary, because it isn't really defined and it doesn't solve anything imnsho The first cause argument resolved the tension between change and constancy and as such paved the way to the solution to the problem of universals. You don't know what you are opining about.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 9:27 am
(February 25, 2015 at 9:16 am)ChadWooters Wrote: The universe cannot be a first (or more accurately primary) cause since it is already a particular contingent thing that changes. By way of contrast, the first cause must be non-contingent and unchanging. I do not understand how a cause can be said to be unchanging when there is a before and after to its previous state of ineffectual rest and subsequent causal action.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 9:55 am
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 10:10 am by Pizza.)
(February 25, 2015 at 9:16 am)ChadWooters Wrote: The universe cannot be a first (or more accurately primary) cause since it is already a particular contingent thing that changes. By way of contrast, the first cause must be non-contingent and unchanging. The impersonal universe which caused this universe is non-contingent and unchanging. It's not hard to mirror mere assertion with more mere assertion.
If an unchanging mind isn't a problem I don't see how an unchanging non-mind is a problem.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 11:59 am
The term ‘cause’ applies to any condition related to why something exists. Only one of Aristotle’s four causes, efficient, refers to the history of a sensible body’s being, i.e. its position in a physical chain of events. The First Cause, as traditionally understood, attempts to define the most fundamental matter and basic form common to all particular things. Neither concerns the temporal origin of particular sensible bodies since neither is subject to change.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 2:45 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 2:46 pm by Mudhammam.)
Sounds like Aristotle and Aquinas clarified precisely nothing.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 3:24 pm
I guess it is your choice if you want to engage in hand-waving rather than address the issues.
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 3:43 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 3:43 pm by Pizza.)
The pot calls the kettle black.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 3:45 pm
(February 25, 2015 at 9:16 am)ChadWooters Wrote: (February 25, 2015 at 4:11 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote: The first cause could be an universe that has different laws than our universe; thus, that universe doesn't need a cause nor an explanation like things in this universe. Other natural laws are possible.
The universe cannot be a first (or more accurately primary) cause since it is already a particular contingent thing that changes. By way of contrast, the first cause must be non-contingent and unchanging.
(February 25, 2015 at 4:48 am)Alex K Wrote: ...the first cause is simply not necessary, because it isn't really defined and it doesn't solve anything imnsho The first cause argument resolved the tension between change and constancy and as such paved the way to the solution to the problem of universals. You don't know what you are opining about.
Explain the tension between constancy and change.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism
February 25, 2015 at 4:10 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2015 at 4:13 pm by Mudhammam.)
(February 25, 2015 at 3:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I guess it is your choice if you want to engage in hand-waving rather than address the issues. I think the person who is engaged in hand-waving is the person who says, "The past can't be infinite. THAT'S INCONCEIVABLE. It must be an eternal, necessary, non-temporal Something which acts in time."
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
|
