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!
Current time: October 31, 2024, 7:44 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I was interviewed by a world religions class student
#11
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
(October 10, 2015 at 2:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(October 9, 2015 at 8:07 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote:


Q2: You say there is no evidence, historical or otherwise, to support the existence of God or Gods. Yet, the cosmological argument/theory uses science/physics to support the argument that there is a God/Self-Being. Do you believe this argument is flawed? If so, why?

A2: "First let’s look at the Cosmological argument:
Incorporating Aristotle's notion of a "prime mover" into Summa Theological and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas famously formulated his version of the cosmological or "first cause" argument. According to this argument, the things which we see around us now are the products of a series of previous causes. But that series cannot go back in time forever. Thus there must be some first cause which was not itself caused by anything else. And that first uncaused cause is God. 

The argument can be put more formally as follows:

1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.

There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, everything could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes—multiple gods, say—or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question—"Why is there something rather than nothing?"—remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists? This is the epitome of god-of-the-gaps argument. We don’t know…so….god.

One cannot state with any degree of validity that the first causal theory doesn't apply to the mythical egocentric Abrahamic god because one has the unique opinion he is the "eternal god", thus wasn't "caused". How does one arrive at that thought? How does one ascertain ones version of "god" is eternal? Which god by the way? There are so many, yet each fan club thinks their god is the only god, the true god and the only true religion. The irony of that kills me. 4500 different religions, all of which claim their god is the one, the truth and the light. Christianity alone has over 40,000 strains of their delusion, and each declares all others are not "true Christians".

The major premise of the argument, ""everything had a cause," is contradicted by the conclusion that "god did not have a cause." You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have had a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe.

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that god is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove. If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe. The word "cause" is a transitive verb. Causality requires temporality. If god exists outside of time, he cannot cause anything.

The latest spin on this position by Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig is that:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This may be seductive to those who already believe in a god. To me, it seems awfully suspicious. The clause "Everything that begins to exist" sounds artificial. It is not a phrase we hear outside the context of theistic philosophy. It appears to be an Ad Hoc construction designed to smooth over earlier apologetic efforts.”


Opinions? thoughts? supporting or opposing perspectives on my answers?

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
You, not a mythical god, are the author of your book of life, make it one worth reading..and living.
Reply
#12
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
(October 11, 2015 at 8:18 am)goodwithoutgod Wrote:
(October 10, 2015 at 2:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:


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.


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.
Reply
#13
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
If some first, un-caused cause were so easy to establish, why haven't we seen any of that? Hell, you could have handled that in your post......right? In the meantime........

Suppose I could provide you with a valid statement that implied a future event could be the cause of a past event, would you accept this as likely to be true? What if I could -also- show the statement to be sound, particularly in the light of the "first cause" claims inability to do so? That would make it an even more compelling argument than the first cause argument, yes? You would have better reason to believe that the arrow of time (and causality) flowed symmetrically than you would have reason to believe in asymmetric time (and with it goes the very -notion- of a "first cause"). Correct? But.......would you?

There's a problem with the system (many, actually, the above is another), which is infinite regress. But the system is -not- the thing it describes, the seeming behavior of the universe. Infinite regress makes it difficult to generate an answer, but it doesn't have -anything- to do with what the correct answer is or might be..perhaps it all does regress infinitely, but it would be -impossible- for our system to work with that, to produce the goods. A problem of the system is not a problem of the universe. The universe can regress infinitely, classical logic cannot. It's a mistake to confuse one for the other.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#14
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
(October 12, 2015 at 10:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If some first, un-caused cause were so easy to establish, why haven't we seen any of that? Hell, you could have handled that in your post......right? In the meantime........

Suppose I could provide you with a valid statement that implied a future event could be the cause of a past event, would you accept this as likely to be true? What if I could -also- show the statement to be sound, particularly in the light of the "first cause" claims inability to do so? That would make it an even more compelling argument than the first cause argument, yes? You would have better reason to believe that the arrow of time (and causality) flowed symmetrically than you would have reason to believe in asymmetric time (and with it goes the very -notion- of a "first cause"). Correct? But.......would you?

There's a problem with the system (many, actually, the above is another), which is infinite regress. But the system is -not- the thing it describes, the seeming behavior of the universe. A problem of the system is not necessarrily a problem of the universe. Infinite regress makes it difficult to generate an answer, but it doesn't have -anything- to do with what the correct answer is or might be.

I'm interested in the case you seem to want to present... Go ahead.
Reply
#15
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
If a ship crashes tonight, there will be a report in the paper tomorrow.

take this MT and turn it into an MP

If there is not a report in the paper tomorrow, a ship will not crash tonight.

You're welcome, will you be establishing your first cause at any point, or was claiming that it was easy to do so good enough? Now, would you like me to find some news stories for you to firmly establish the soundness of ships crashing and papers reporting on them? Do you still believe in the asymmetry of time and causal relationship?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#16
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
(October 12, 2015 at 11:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If a ship crashes tonight, there will be a report in the paper tomorrow.

take this MT and turn it into an MP

If there is not a report in the paper tomorrow, a ship will not crash tonight.

You're welcome, will you be establishing your first cause at any point, or was claiming that it was easy to do so good enough? Now, would you like me to find some news stories for you to firmly establish the soundness of ships crashing and papers reporting on them? Do you still believe in the asymmetry of time and causal relationship?

You've lost me with this one.
Reply
#17
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
Take a look at the causal inference in the transposition, whereby...a report in the paper -tommorrow- seems to have some effect on whether or not a ship crashes -tonight-. It's all on the up and up, of course, textbook even. Has it ever been the case, in your experience, that some event "x" tommorrow was the cause of some outcome "y" today?

Nevertheless, armed with this valid form, loaded up with sound propositions - have you abandoned your belief in asymmetric time and cause?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#18
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
(October 9, 2015 at 8:44 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote:
(October 9, 2015 at 8:36 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: GwoG! WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN, MAN!?!

I've missed ya.

Was on vacation for two weeks in the mountains of Tennessee buying a house, and resting my foot. Hoping to get my old ass back in the gym sunday, I just got back in tonight, and I have duty tomorrow...win lol. I didnt know you were on this forum as well, good to see you. I dont come here often, and perhaps I should..

You most certainly should. Losty misses you too D:
Hope you had a good vaca Heart
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay

0/10

Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Reply
#19
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
(October 12, 2015 at 11:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Take a look at the causal inference in the transposition, whereby...a report in the paper -tommorrow- seems to have some effect on whether or not a ship crashes -tonight-.  It's all on the up and up, of course, textbook even.  Has it ever been the case, in your experience, that some event "x" tommorrow was the cause of some outcome "y" today?

Nevertheless, armed with this valid form, loaded up with sound propositions - have you abandoned your belief in asymmetric time and cause?

Well... first, I don't think that a newspaper report has causal sufficiency to crash a ship (at least not directly, perhaps as a secondary cause through misinformation).

Secondly, I was say that your transposition is a demonstration of the principle of causality in making an inference, not a causal force.  Lastly, a lack of a report in the newspaper does not necessarily mean that a ship has not crashed.

So, as of yet, I don't think I'm ready to rid myself of asymmetric time and cause.
Reply
#20
RE: I was interviewed by a world religions class student
(October 13, 2015 at 12:40 am)Losty Wrote:
(October 9, 2015 at 8:44 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote: Was on vacation for two weeks in the mountains of Tennessee buying a house, and resting my foot. Hoping to get my old ass back in the gym sunday, I just got back in tonight, and I have duty tomorrow...win lol. I didnt know you were on this forum as well, good to see you. I dont come here often, and perhaps I should..

You most certainly should. Losty misses you too D:
Hope you had a good vaca Heart

I did enjoy my time off, was recuperating from a sprained ankle, and buying a house, was so nice and quiet up in the mountains away from all of the craziness of the big city.  Shy
You, not a mythical god, are the author of your book of life, make it one worth reading..and living.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Health class christian teacher..... brewer 7 1046 March 26, 2021 at 10:37 pm
Last Post: no one
  Muslim students less likely to be awarded top class degrees. Succubus#2 28 3078 March 22, 2020 at 6:02 am
Last Post: Belacqua
Smile Interesting correlation between God and light in major world religions... Ajay0 17 2353 May 24, 2019 at 4:10 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  To all religions/What makes you think...... Brian37 22 3608 February 26, 2019 at 8:46 am
Last Post: no one
  Religions Role in Social Movements, Essential or Accidental? Neo-Scholastic 17 4154 October 4, 2018 at 3:58 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Are all religions cults? Aroura 88 13830 September 30, 2018 at 1:41 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Why do some believers claim that all religions are just as good? Der/die AtheistIn 22 4405 June 25, 2018 at 12:10 pm
Last Post: Succubus
  Why do the Abrahamic religions hate the female body so much? Rhondazvous 84 13620 June 18, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions? Greatest I am 37 14098 March 23, 2018 at 12:52 pm
Last Post: Succubus
  How I view all the world's religions. Brian37 0 665 March 22, 2018 at 4:19 pm
Last Post: Brian37



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)