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!
(March 25, 2016 at 7:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I was assuming that there was some form of reasoning/basis behind your "if you think about it", and asking you to explain how you came to this conclusion.
For me, it's a matter of examining the surrounding arguments. So many theistic positions are predicated on the universe, or some subset of it, being "too X" to have arisen sans deity: the universe is too well designed to have arisen naturally, biology is too complex to have evolved, etc etc. To then turn around and posit an infinitely more complex entity as the solution to those problems is to discard the very contentions within those positions any power at all: if complexity and intricacy in the universe are a problem, then why aren't they equally a problem for god?
Oh, but god is "self existing," whatever that means. God just always was! And there you have the problem with theistic thinking: bare assertions and subtractions take the place of any meaningful justification of the claim. Many theistic arguments just don't bother to provide positive evidence for god at all, they seek instead to cut a god shaped problem into our understanding of the world that can be, so very coincidentally, filled by their particular god. Stripped of all the fancy philosophical language and intentional obfuscation, the majority of theistic arguments fall into the same formulation: "Here is a problem with the world, because there are rules in place that prevent it from resolving naturalistically. Here is an entity that is asserted to exist. It is the thing that solves the problem that is asserted to exist by breaking the rules that are asserted to apply to everything." It just invents a negative space that looks a bit like god if you squint, without ever bothering to establish that the thing inside that space is actually god, instead of just wishful thinking grafted onto an argument from ignorance.
Quote:For that which is self existing (non-contingent), I don't see that there is any logical necessity that this thing be either simple or complex, as it is not dependent on anything else for it's existence. That which is the effect of something else, requires a cause, which is sufficient to explain that effect. If that which is in question, is not the effect of something else, then I don't think we can make any demands as it must be this or that. It would seem to me, that a first cause, must be sufficient to explain everything that came after and that you are working the other way around.
Also I would agree with many current philosophers of religion, in saying that God is simple in nature not complex (composed of many parts).
Like this, for example: pontificating about what we can and cannot logically expect from a first cause, seemingly without care that a "self existing" first cause makes no logical sense on its own. God shaped hole, not god shaped god.
Esquilax, from you post, I gather; that you are not really understanding what the arguments are and why they are being made. I see a few things that are caricatures of what the actual arguments are. However; that is separate from what I gather your contention is here. Namely, that the same principles are not being applied consistently.
The principle here, is that everything that has a beginning, must have an explanation for that beginning, and how it came to be as it is (principle of causality). The key phrase in your comments is “has arisen”. If this phrase cannot be applied, then the argument no longer applies either. If the thing in question does not have a cause, then would you agree, that asking for a cause (or about it) is illogical?
The principle of causality, also says that the cause must be sufficient to produce the effect that is seen. This is how inductive reasoning works. For something which begins to accelerate, a force equal to the mass times the acceleration is needed (actually slightly more with losses). If one is pontificating a cause that is not capable of producing this force, then it is unreasonable to believe that to be the cause of the given effect.
I do believe the arguments, which require a first cause (or necessary cause) and the issues that arise with an infinite regress. And the arguments that you are referring to, only put forth some qualities which are believed to be sufficient for the cause of the universe. I don’t believe that these arguments do establish the cause of the universe as the first cause (and I don’t know how we could establish this, the best we can say is we do not know). And if the cause of the universe is not the primary cause, then yes, I would agree, that these arguments (ID) may apply (not the arguments of causality).
