Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
January 29, 2015 at 1:46 am
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2015 at 1:47 am by Whateverist.)
(January 18, 2015 at 3:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause.
What is wrong with the above premise?
Well you weren't there, were you? Apparently, neither was anyone else or there would be some still earlier cause which brought that observer into being. Better to let causeless causes lie than to lie about that which you have no more of a clue than anyone else.
Posts: 250
Threads: 15
Joined: May 10, 2014
Reputation:
4
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 15, 2015 at 2:28 am
(January 18, 2015 at 3:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause.
What is wrong with the above premise?
From what I've learnt, judging a premise is a two phase endeavour.
1) Is the premise true?
2) If not true, is it likely to be true?
Applying this to your premise, it cannot be said that your premise is true. However, it can be said that it is likely to be true. Therefore it is a reasonable premise.
The least we can do is be reasonable.
8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Posts: 176
Threads: 6
Joined: February 7, 2015
Reputation:
2
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 15, 2015 at 5:22 am
(January 18, 2015 at 3:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause.
What is wrong with the above premise?
1. It is possible for all things in existence to have no beginning and no end but be self-existent or always existing, and we are just experiencing life linearly where we perceive cause and effect, but this is local to just our existence within the greater universe that may not have had a beginning but always was, without cause or explanation.
2. It is possible for no things to exist, and all we perceive is illusion without substance
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 15, 2015 at 6:31 am
I think quantum mechanics would disagree heavily, and that in fact things do come into existence with no discernible cause. To randomly attribute a cause to them because they "must have one" would be a fallacy.
Posts: 1494
Threads: 0
Joined: July 26, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 15, 2015 at 9:43 am
(January 20, 2015 at 2:09 pm)Heywood Wrote: (January 20, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Davka Wrote: Then does your "god" exist outside the universe? 
I have come to the conclusion that even if God doesn't exist, there must be more to reality than just the observable universe.
So yes...my God could very well exist outside the observable universe but He could not exist or ever exist outside of reality.
Then what created the reality we experience? After all it must have a cause right? If everything in reality has a cause, what caused god?
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 15, 2015 at 10:32 am
(This post was last modified: February 15, 2015 at 10:32 am by Mudhammam.)
(February 15, 2015 at 9:43 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: (January 20, 2015 at 2:09 pm)Heywood Wrote: I have come to the conclusion that even if God doesn't exist, there must be more to reality than just the observable universe.
So yes...my God could very well exist outside the observable universe but He could not exist or ever exist outside of reality.
Then what created the reality we experience? After all it must have a cause right? If everything in reality has a cause, what caused god? Shhh don't let the cat out of the bag! God is by definition the explanation that needs no explaining and can be used as a "Get out of jail free" card whenever the theist finds his or herself in a logical mess.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 250
Threads: 15
Joined: May 10, 2014
Reputation:
4
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 15, 2015 at 2:20 pm
(This post was last modified: February 15, 2015 at 2:25 pm by BlackMason.)
(February 15, 2015 at 6:31 am)robvalue Wrote: I think quantum mechanics would disagree heavily, and that in fact things do come into existence with no discernible cause.
The lack of a discernible cause does not equate to no cause. It just may not be discernible with current technology.
Come to think of it, can we even have a reasonable conversation on causeless things? We have no reference point for a causeless entity. Therefore I believe there can be no consensus on such a topic.
8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 15, 2015 at 2:58 pm
(February 15, 2015 at 2:20 pm)BlackMason Wrote: The lack of a discernible cause does not equate to no cause. It just may not be discernible with current technology. But isn't that just a "cause of the gaps" argument?
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: 176
Threads: 6
Joined: February 7, 2015
Reputation:
2
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 15, 2015 at 6:24 pm
(February 15, 2015 at 9:43 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: (January 20, 2015 at 2:09 pm)Heywood Wrote: I have come to the conclusion that even if God doesn't exist, there must be more to reality than just the observable universe.
So yes...my God could very well exist outside the observable universe but He could not exist or ever exist outside of reality.
Then what created the reality we experience? After all it must have a cause right? If everything in reality has a cause, what caused god?
Dear Mr.wizard
this is the line of thinking that leads to the conclusion God must be infinite.
for if reality has a creator, and you call that starting point God,
and if there is something that created that, then that becomes the starting point God,
etc. etc. etc. So this goes on to infinity.
this is consistent with the viewpoint that God/creation has no beginning
or no end, and has always been self-existent eternally.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 15, 2015 at 6:31 pm
(This post was last modified: February 15, 2015 at 6:34 pm by robvalue.)
(February 15, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: (February 15, 2015 at 2:20 pm)BlackMason Wrote: The lack of a discernible cause does not equate to no cause. It just may not be discernible with current technology. But isn't that just a "cause of the gaps" argument?
Right. There may be a cause, but this premise flatly states that there is one. So this is as yet not valid.
But I mean really, all this Kalam stuff is utterly crud. Even if you allow the whole thing, it gets you nowhere towards the obviously intended conclusion. It barely limps over the first hurdle, leaving three other much more difficult hurdles.
|
