Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
October 12, 2015 at 8:26 pm
(October 11, 2015 at 8:18 am)goodwithoutgod Wrote:
(October 10, 2015 at 2:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
I am interested in your Q/A #2
I think that you correctly stated, that the argument you put forth from Aristotle hinges on premise number two. And this cannot be known absolutely, without absolute knowledge (as we currently cannot test that not everything is caused by something else). However there are valid philosophical reasons to hold to premise two.
First, you cannot have an actual infinite quantity (it is an abstract). You can have a potential infinite, with the possibility for more, but you always have a finite set. Take this into consideration with time, and cause and effect.
If there is a potential infinite amount of time, then you always have a preceding moment in time. You essentially have time flowing in two directions. With this, you also will have effects proceeding their causes. Another consequence is that if time is flowing in both directions, then wouldn't there still be a starting point of reference? It is now in the middle, but you still have to have an initial cause that is uncaused. I believe that to get rid of premise #2 is to remove the whole cause and effect relationship, which is a foundational assumption of both science and philosophy.
You state that it is a contradiction that "everything has a cause, but "god (sic) did not have a cause". However; this is a mis-statement of the argument. The argument is that everything which has a beginning has a cause. That which does not have a beginning does not require a cause to account for a beginning (there is no effect to require it). This is necessary no matter which view you hold as a primary cause, if you are going to avoid the consequences of infinite regress.
You assert that time and the universe can be posited as not having a beginning. Have you every looked at the evidence why scientists believe this not to be the case. I stated one philosophical reason why time cannot be eternal above.
You also said that the argument that "every thing that begins to exist has a cause" seems suspicious, and appears to be "ad hoc"; that it is not a phrase we hear outside of theistic philosophy. Again, I would say that this is a foundational presupposition of science and philosophy. We assume that what which begins has a cause, and we can only do this, if we first have an uncaused cause.
I would point out, that this is not a new spin by Dr. Craig, but that the basic argument has been around for centuries. It can be seen as an extension of Aristotle's argument, but the Kalam is normally attributed to a 9th century Muslim philosopher. The only difference I am aware of is that he makes reference to the world, where as Craig does change it to universe; but, it is the same basic argument.
I do agree with you, that these arguments do no point to a specific religious tradition. And they are not meant to. This is a part of a larger argument which seeks to assess the qualities of the cause, which is in answer to the question, "why is there something rather than nothing". It utilizes evidence and reason, to look for a likely answer.
This part of the argument seeks to establish one thing alone. That there is a first cause, which is uncaused. (As seen in the Judeo/Christian revelation many centuries before) Seeing how there is multiple points of evidence which speak to the universe having a beginning, it cannot be this cause.
I think you are mis-interpreting the intentions of these arguments, in thinking that they are meant to point to a specific religion. For that you need revelation, and to decide if the history of these religions is reliable.
Thanks for your thoughtful and thought provoking reply. I do not think I am misinterpreting the argument. The argument is for a first cause, which is unprovable, and the argument is designed and presented in such a manner as to lead one to think it proves a first cause...which it does not.
When I was a Christian, I thought the First Causal was a slam dunk solid philosophical argument, but that is because i was viewing it from a believer's point of view psychologically. The problem with philosophical arguments is the tendency to contemplate and view them through ones own worldview perspective....as in....if one is a believer, then one will tend to leap at something which is seemingly presented to be supportive of that world view, and the same goes for the skeptics. The hardest challenge I have, as I am sure any honest person will assert, is to neutrally view and consider information that goes against my worldview. I would submit to you it is almost impossible not to at least subconsciously lean towards or against information that doesn't validate ones perspective. I do try though. Which is why I have so many christian scholarly books in my private library, many more than atheist books. It is why one of my three degrees is in religious studies, with a specialization in Christianity from Saint Leo University (the other two are criminal justice; BA Crim Just w/ spec in Homeland Security and MS Crim Just in Critical Incident Management, irrelevant in this discussion but I did get them from SLU as well so I am comfortable in the catholic christian environment). I like having information to consider and actually rarely read pro atheist books as I find they can also spin information, and cherry pick evidence, and the same goes for pro xtian books and sites, so I prefer to gather it from either neutral scholarly sources, or in the case of debating christianty, I use the bible and my textbooks from attending school there. The reason is, even if it is the same information, and cited source, if it comes from a christian university textbook, it has a bit more sting, and xtians have a tendency to accept the information easier. if the exact same quote, from the same cited source comes from an atheist book, they wave it aside as atheist propaganda...just the way it goes...wow, did I just ramble on or what. I apologize. I am a military officer and just got home from 24 hour duty, bit exhausted.
Cheers
I'm always amazed that this topic generates so much controversy. And often it's not even over the second premise, which although it has significant scientific validation I can understand someone questioning. It's my belief that it is mostly prejudice against it's use by Christians.
I would agree with you, that it doesn't demonstrate a first cause. Although with arguments against an infinite regress, one can easily establish that there must be a first cause which is uncaused.
This argument is logically valid. That is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion will logically follow to be true.
The first premise is the Law of Causality. That which begins to exist is an effect, that requires a cause. To deny this, is to say that something can pop into existence from absolutely nothing. It cannot be proven, but I do believe that the alternative is counter-intuitive and absurd. It is a major presumption of science and philosophy.
The second premise is that the universe had a beginning. In the past people did believe that the universe was eternal, but now most acknowledge the multiple points of evidence that says that the universe didn't always exist.
So it follows, as stated in the conclusion that the universe had a cause. I'm not aware of any arguments which state that the cause of the universe is necessarily the first cause (other than theological claims). As stated previously though, one can make an argument for a primary uncaused cause.
