God's God

[Mystic]

Also Atheists acknowledge most things require a cause. That most things are effects. I really see it more of a case of special pleading of thinking existence is not an effect, then thinking it is an effect. But that's just me.

You: Everything practically requires a cause except existence.

Me: Everything requires a cause and is an effect.

Which one is special pleading?

Yes everything as in the Creator too, who must be his own constant cause.

Ofcourse everything that pertains to that existence (like motion, time of it, how it forms objects etc) needs a cause from Atheist stand point, it's just it's very existence doesn't, but of course it's the Theists who are special pleading.

[Gooders1002]

You do realize I posted this months ago?
http://atheistforums.org/thread-17328.html

[archangle]

Our omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God has always been, there has never been a moment He did not exist. I'm sure you find this difficult to comprehend, so you'll just dismiss it. I'm not saying I or anyone could comprehend this, it's that I choose to believe what He says.

not really.
what is baffling is that you are assigning traits to a thing we don't know much about. for example: If the universe is alive, then that thing seems to you as if it has always been. When it might not have.
Why do you need it to be omni-anything?

[Esquilax]

Also Atheists acknowledge most things require a cause. That most things are effects. I really see it more of a case of special pleading of thinking existence is not an effect, then thinking it is an effect. But that's just me.

You don't think reality might be a different kettle of fish, as opposed to other things? It's kind of... immense, dude, and has a set of theoretical underpinnings that we can't even safely assume to be correct right now.

You: Everything practically requires a cause except existence.

More like: As far as we know, everything requires a cause. Existence might too, but we don't know, so we'll hold off saying for sure until we do.

Me: Everything requires a cause and is an effect.

Which is not okay, because you can't be sure everything does require a cause. Further, even if we become certain of that, it doesn't follow that the cause is the god you want to specify. That's an additional claim that requires additional, specific proof.

Which one is special pleading?

The one that states a set of rules and then immediately demands a suspension of them for a deity. The atheist position is generally more of a shrug and a recognition that stating things concretely without all the information is silly.

Yes everything as in the Creator too, who must be his own constant cause.

Ah, there's your special pleading!

Ofcourse everything that pertains to that existence (like motion, time of it, how it forms objects etc) needs a cause from Atheist stand point, it's just it's very existence doesn't, but of course it's the Theists who are special pleading.

Well... yeah. Someone who doesn't give an answer can't be special pleading, can they? Theists, however, are providing an answer that they can't prove, that contradicts other portions of their claim.

[archangle]

Also Atheists acknowledge most things require a cause. That most things are effects. I really see it more of a case of special pleading of thinking existence is not an effect, then thinking it is an effect. But that's just me.

You: Everything practically requires a cause except existence.

Me: Everything requires a cause and is an effect.

Which one is special pleading?

Yes everything as in the Creator too, who must be his own constant cause.

Ofcourse everything that pertains to that existence (like motion, time of it, how it forms objects etc) needs a cause from Atheist stand point, it's just it's very existence doesn't, but of course it's the Theists who are special pleading.

The start of everything is in question. After that most things are both causes and effects. Including "existence". The word I would apply is "Homeostasis".

[Mystic]

You don't think reality might be a different kettle of fish, as opposed to other things? It's kind of... immense, dude, and has a set of theoretical underpinnings that we can't even safely assume to be correct right now.

I think existence seems to be an an effect. It appears to me in the same way as motion appears to you to be an effect. What you said about not understanding can be the same about things in nature. We can possibly not understand black-holes. It doesn't mean they don't have a cause or we can't know they do have a cause.

Think about existence. It's perpetually existing. Why is that constantly not caused, but everything else seems like that? Perhaps it's due to "Atheism" glasses, where everything we know that can possibly point to a Creator is assumed to be assumptions from ignorance.

More like: As far as we know, everything requires a cause. Existence might too, but we don't know, so we'll hold off saying for sure until we do.

Well it's more then that. I'm not saying to claim to know for sure, but it sure seems that way.

This calls for being agnostic, but not sitting on the other side of fence where it seems most likely a Creator doesn't exist from atheist stand point.

Which is not okay, because you can't be sure everything does require a cause.

How do you know that? Every axiom that proves the Creator seems to be we can't be sure of at the end. I am not certain, but I don't claim no one else can be certain in something that seems true to me.

Does it seem true to you or not? That's the question. Then we can ask why does it seem like that. And perhaps we will become less certain or close to certain or even certain.

Why give up on certainty?

Further, even if we become certain of that, it doesn't follow that the cause is the god you want to specify. That's an additional claim that requires additional, specific proof.

It doesn't specify the type of Creator I agree, but it does imply a supernatural constant cause to the universe.

The one that states a set of rules and then immediately demands a suspension of them for a deity. The atheist position is generally more of a shrug and a recognition that stating things concretely without all the information is silly.

In other words, if it's not proven empirically, you don't take side of the fence, that the Creator seems more likely no matter how seemingly true it is?

Is it only empirical evidence that you take seriously?

Ah, there's your special pleading!

To quote myself:

The logical premise (which seems true to me) is that everything needs a constant cause.
If everything needs a constant cause, then either it's the cause of itself in it's current state or it has a cause from other than itself in it's current state.

Then I reasoned why things in the universe and the universe itself seems to not be able to be constantly causing itself.

Then I reasoned why the supernatural immensely powerful being can be causing itself and the universe.

Where is the special pleading?

Well... yeah. Someone who doesn't give an answer can't be special pleading, can they? Theists, however, are providing an answer that they can't prove, that contradicts other portions of their claim.

It seems like it's still special pleading. Because it's saying "yes we can know everything requires a cause in general, but we can't know existence requires a cause"....why is this the case?

[Neo-Scholastic]

More like: As far as we know, everything requires a cause. Existence might too, but we don't know, so we'll hold off saying for sure until we do.

No exactly. 'Coming into being' is a property of all physical objects. Every physical object with which we have experience has a beginning and persists and presumably ends. The coming into being of any physical object depends on something other than itself into order to begin and persist (which is just continual coming into being).

The known universe is a physical object, the same as all others. So even as a whole, the physical universe should not be treated differently than any other physical object. To do otherwise, one must start 'special pleading'. To avoid 'special pleading' you posit the existence of a non-physical thing on which all physical things, including the known universe, depend.

[The Grand Nudger]

The trouble, again, is that regardless of whether or not the universe was caused by something, or we have our notion of causality skewed somehow - there isn't anything in there about a god. What we've seen from the god asserting camp in this area is now and has always been special pleading.

[Esquilax]

I think existence seems to be an an effect. It appears to me in the same way as motion appears to you to be an effect. What you said about not understanding can be the same about things in nature. We can possibly not understand black-holes. It doesn't mean they don't have a cause or we can't know they do have a cause.

Unless you're infallible, what things seem like to you is an irrelevancy. It could simply be that you're lacking key pieces of information- unknown unknowns, if you like- that could radically change the way we must approach this question. Making concrete statements right now is pointless.

Think about existence. It's perpetually existing. Why is that constantly not caused, but everything else seems like that? Perhaps it's due to "Atheism" glasses, where everything we know that can possibly point to a Creator is assumed to be assumptions from ignorance.

Well, except that the atheist position generally says nothing about creators in general, just that specific religious ones haven't met their burden of proof. I'm entirely willing to accept that there may be a creator, just that as yet, religions haven't satisfied me that it's theirs.

Well it's more then that. I'm not saying to claim to know for sure, but it sure seems that way.

The earth once seemed flat. Things aren't always as they seem, especially when we're talking about concepts bigger than our perspective will usually allow.

This calls for being agnostic, but not sitting on the other side of fence where it seems most likely a Creator doesn't exist from atheist stand point.

Agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive terms.The former addresses what you claim to know, the latter what you claim to believe. Besides, atheism isn't a stance on creators, it's a stance on religion: not "there's probably no creator," but "your specific religious creator does not seem likely."

How do you know that? Every axiom that proves the Creator seems to be we can't be sure of at the end. I am not certain, but I don't claim no one else can be certain in something that seems true to me.

How do I know that you don't know for certain if everything requires a creator? Because you're not omnipotent. There's things you don't know, and much of the universe falls under that category. It's nothing to feel bad about, but it is the truth; we as a species could be missing some immense, vital part of the puzzle.

Does it seem true to you or not? That's the question. Then we can ask why does it seem like that. And perhaps we will become less certain or close to certain or even certain.

Accepting things as they seem is intellectual laziness; lots of things seem one way but are actually another. That's what science is for, to cut through what seems intuitively to be true into what is actually true.

Why give up on certainty?

You can't give up what you never had.

It doesn't specify the type of Creator I agree, but it does imply a supernatural constant cause to the universe.

Not necessarily. Even if it implied a constant cause there's no reason to assume that cause is supernatural; it could just be a feature of the universe our technology can't detect yet. This is the problem with making blanket statements about things we can't possibly know.

In other words, if it's not proven empirically, you don't take side of the fence, that the Creator seems more likely no matter how seemingly true it is?

Is it only empirical evidence that you take seriously?

I take evidence seriously, but since we don't yet have any evidence of what happened before the big bang, I'm taking a sabbatical on answering questions about the beginning of the universe. What's the problem with that?

Then I reasoned why the supernatural immensely powerful being can be causing itself and the universe.

Where is the special pleading?

Because we have no evidence for things causing themselves to exist. You're asking us to accept your conclusion, only it's based on a premise you can't quite prove.

It seems like it's still special pleading. Because it's saying "yes we can know everything requires a cause in general, but we can't know existence requires a cause"....why is this the case?

It's not. That's why I added "as far as we know," before talking about everything requiring a cause.

[Mystic]

Unless you're infallible, what things seem like to you is an irrelevancy. It could simply be that you're lacking key pieces of information- unknown unknowns, if you like- that could radically change the way we must approach this question. Making concrete statements right now is pointless.

Why is it irrelevant if I'm not infallible. I go do a math test, an answer seems true to me, I shouldn't write it after much studying, because I'm not infallible? Of course I can be wrong, it doesn't mean I ought to not have the answer to what seems true to me.

Also, you are assuming this all from the lenses of naturalism. If naturalism is true, I agree we really can't know existence requires a constant cause.

However if is the case the existence does require a constant cause, and the Creator requires to constantly cause himself and everything else in existence, then, I don't see, how given that we have logic, and knowledge of other intuitive things like praise, morals, etc, or "from nothing, nothing follows", that we can't be given knowledge of this?

But aside from that, aside from the issue of knowledge, even if we weren't given knowledge, it does seem to be the case that existence too requires a constant cause instead of simply things like motion.

Well, except that the atheist position generally says nothing about creators in general, just that specific religious ones haven't met their burden of proof. I'm entirely willing to accept that there may be a creator, just that as yet, religions haven't satisfied me that it's theirs.

Agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive terms.The former addresses what you claim to know, the latter what you claim to believe. Besides, atheism isn't a stance on creators, it's a stance on religion: not "there's probably no creator," but "your specific religious creator does not seem likely."

True enough. However, most Atheists tend to think a cosmic creator his highly unlikely as opposed to highly likely.

How do I know that you don't know for certain if everything requires a creator? Because you're not omnipotent. There's things you don't know, and much of the universe falls under that category. It's nothing to feel bad about, but it is the truth; we as a species could be missing some immense, vital part of the puzzle.

I don't need to know everything to know somethings. That's just silly.

Accepting things as they seem is intellectual laziness; lots of things seem one way but are actually another. That's what science is for, to cut through what seems intuitively to be true into what is actually true.

Science can't really answer for you regarding this. It's ontological...not empirical.

You can't give up what you never had.

What I meant is why give up being certain. Often, when I do a math problem, I redo it a few times to become certain of it.

Perhaps constant reflection over this issue, can make us certain. I don't know. It may, it may not.

Not necessarily. Even if it implied a constant cause there's no reason to assume that cause is supernatural; it could just be a feature of the universe our technology can't detect yet. This is the problem with making blanket statements about things we can't possibly know.

But I reasoned why it can't be a feature of the universe. So the conclusion would follow from the reasoning I showed, even if you disagreed with it.

I take evidence seriously, but since we don't yet have any evidence of what happened before the big bang, I'm taking a sabbatical on answering questions about the beginning of the universe. What's the problem with that?

We have evidence that time is not infinite (it doesn't go back forever and ever). You can make conclusions based on that.

Because we have no evidence for things causing themselves to exist. You're asking us to accept your conclusion, only it's based on a premise you can't quite prove.

That was the conclusion that followed from a premise though, mainly that everything requires a cause including existence.

It's not. That's why I added "as far as we know," before talking about everything requiring a cause.

It's still special pleading. It's saying we do know everything else requires a cause but we don't know existence does.

Seems like special pleading still. Unless you can explain why existence should be treated differently.