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 11:34 am)Rhythm Wrote: Road, if all that you see here, around you...everything in this world, positively screams out for an explanation, for cause. So too, would a god. If a person was consistently applying whatever thought process led them to the former, the latter is inescapable. If, in the latter, one feels that no further explanation, no further cause, is necessary, then again, a person applying whatever thought process led them to that conclusion, consistently, would see no such requirement for the former.
Either the same thought process works in both cases, or it doesn't work at all.
Everything in this world (universe) requires a cause, because it is contingent. The evidence points to the universe having a beginning, and therefore everything in the universe (world) must have also had a beginning (or to have originated from outside of the universe) That which is non-contingent by definition does not dependent on something else for it's existence.
In any case, it seems difficult to me, to make an argument which states that everything must have a cause/beginning and have this system exclude itself (or am I misunderstanding). It appears that you are saying, that everything must have a beginning (explanation for it's existence), yet are using this to say there is no beginning?
(March 25, 2016 at 11:17 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I am curious about your "if you think about it" statement here.... could you please expound on this more, and why you are questioning "how logical is it".
I don't understand what you want me to expand on "if you think about it". It's quite simple. Think about if it is logical that the first thing to exist/be is insanely complex with super intelligence, with the ability to do exactly everything, see everything, even change/break the laws of the universe (omnipotent).
"And I am questioning how logical is it?" because many theists seem to think the existence of everything is illogical without a God and I am asking you theists how logical is it that the first thing to exist/be is insanely complex with super intelligence, with the ability to do exactly everything, see everything, even change/break the laws of the universe (omnipotent).
I don't think I can be more clear than that. I want you to answer how logical it is from your perspective, and good points/arguments to why it would be logical, it seems like you're trying to dodge my question.
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. I didn't realize it was a question, and it appears, that you are making a statement and without giving any reason to that statement.
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).
(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.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
March 26, 2016 at 2:40 am (This post was last modified: March 26, 2016 at 2:44 am by robvalue.)
Everything requires a cause because it is contingent? You're just begging the question through definition.
Even if I let this go and say that everything in the universe requires a cause, it's a fallacy of composition to apply that to the universe itself. Properties of the whole need not reflect properties of the parts, or the contents.
No one knows whether the universe had "a beginning" or not, so it is speculation and nothing more. Trying to apply everday logic to situations where all our scientific models start going bonkers is at best naive.
It's a good thing God is imaginary, or else all these problems would apply to him too. The fact that theists wave such objections away is called special pleading. God is just different. Well, reality as a whole could also be just different. Pushing the problem back a step does not answer it. If God ever showed up in reality, maybe theists would start asking the questions sceptics already have prepared for him.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(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.... I want to take a little time with this, I'll get back to you in a couple of days.
(March 26, 2016 at 2:40 am)robvalue Wrote: Everything requires a cause because it is contingent? You're just begging the question through definition.
If you go back and read the conversation, I was responding to someone else, who stated that everything we see has a cause.
Quote:Even if I let this go and say that everything in the universe requires a cause, it's a fallacy of composition to apply that to the universe itself. Properties of the whole need not reflect properties of the parts, or the contents.
Again, go back and read again. I wasn't making the argument you think.
Quote:No one knows whether the universe had "a beginning" or not, so it is speculation and nothing more. Trying to apply everday logic to situations where all our scientific models start going bonkers is at best naive.
Are you saying that your position is illogical?
Quote:It's a good thing God is imaginary, or else all these problems would apply to him too. The fact that theists wave such objections away is called special pleading. God is just different. Well, reality as a whole could also be just different. Pushing the problem back a step does not answer it. If God ever showed up in reality, maybe theists would start asking the questions sceptics already have prepared for him.
Please explain, how is this special pleading. I had another try this once, claiming that the statement "everything that begins to exists, has a cause" is special pleading; saying that God did not have a cause. His logic didn't hold and committed suicide, but in typical fashion he declared intellectual superiority and victory all along anyway. Perhaps you can do better.
