RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 1:09 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2017 at 1:11 pm by Amarok.)
(November 28, 2017 at 12:59 pm)Hammy Wrote:(November 28, 2017 at 12:54 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: That or time runs two different ways at once
Which is a nonsensical concept because the future is what happens next and the past is what has already happened. If A came first and A causes B then B cannot cause A in the same sense, because B's ultimate cause is A if A truly came first.
No i'm afraid that is not what i mean
(November 28, 2017 at 1:05 pm)Hammy Wrote: An ontological infinite regress can only happen in an infinite universe. A Reductio ad Absurdum via an infinite regress argument shows that something begs the question for infinity, and that is an argument that can be made in a finite universe just as much an infinite one, and an argument merely to show that a special pleading is being made. To say that everything needs a cause is to say that God also needs a cause, and that whatever caused God needs a cause, and that needs a cause, and so on, for all infinity.I'll grant the possibility of this . And your right that it's pure special pleading.
If it is truly true that everything needs a cause, then the universe must be infinite.
I think what theists are really trying but failing to say is "Everything needs a cause . . . except God" which is indeed special pleading and a completely unqualified statement. "Everything needs a cause . . . except the first cause." actually makes sense in a finite universe, but the assumption that that first cause must be God or must have a mind is just special pleading that isn't backed up by anything. There's no reason at all to think that the first cause is any different from any of the other causes at all, let alone to think that it's "God".
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Inuit Proverb