Am I a Deist? Cosmological Argument seems reasonable to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

It haven't said it persists or interact, it doesn't necessarily, the unmoved mover doesn't, it only sets in motion, its the CAUSE.

You don't think that being somethings cause is an interaction? 

No I don't want it to be capable of magic in this universe, I just want it to be causeless cause, and on this universe that would be magic, so it I propose that if it were from another universe it would not be magic.

Right, a causeless cause that caused all this...the singlemost important magical interaction that can be imagined.  

We source it from somewhere else so it is not magic.

I'm sorry you don't like the word, now.....but it doesn;t really matter what we call it - the issues remain unresolved by any other name.  

--------------------------------------------
You guys seem to think (and are very dedicated to go against) a God that was not proposed or implied at all. I and RobValue are both talking about a uncaused cause and how that would make sense, especially when we consider that the cause its prior to time itself and how would that make sense.

.......................?  I asked you how you went from an uncaused cause to a god (you know, to be a deist and whatnot..., since it "makes sense"?  I'm only addressing this notion as a cause at present, until I see how or why we turn it into a god.  

So I think you guys are confused.

Keeping it rolling, why is it that you want a causeless cause in the first place?

[Whateverist]

Pretty sure it is to protect us all from the boogy-regress. Oooooh, spooky.

[Alex K]

Also, the cosmological argument is self-defeating. If a god can exist without a prior cause, then why can't the universe?

This is one of the classic refutations that I just don't think it holds.

A god could come to existance without a prior cause because he would be able to do godlike shit like creating himself or some other magical and non-sensical stuff that natural things just can't do (or at least wouldn't be reasonable to expect they would)

While an universe coming into existance without a prior cause doesn't really make sense (not saying its impossible but I just don't think it would make any sense for it do suddenly come into existance)

Of course it does. There is no reason to think that the physical laws we observe *within* the universe apply to the universe as a whole. And even within it, causation is fishy (think nuclear decays). Last but not least, the linear smooth nature of time probably does not extend to near the big bang...

[Pat Mustard]

Well, your god is actually a god of the gaps. As you've said yourself you feel that there is a gap in science which can only be explained by the presence of a god, viz the creation of the universe. In the past it used be thunder and lightning, today it is the creation of the universe, what gap will be left tomorrow?

Edit: Also if you think the universe itself needs a cause, what exempts its creator from itself needing a cause? That's one question that I've never see a theist or deist who argues this line even attempt to answer.

Look at it like this: Say the individuated forces of the universe are like the colors of the rainbow. Believers used to think each individual color was a God, now we know they come from a unified source and unfold by natural frequency variation when passed through a prism. So now believers call the unified light before being spread apart "God".

What was "caused" into being? Matter? Not according to the law of conservation of energy.  Was space caused into being between extremely tiny bits of that original matter? Yes. The creation of the void space required for matter to move is what creates time.

The original matter/God does not need a beginning, "a beginning" (of a universe) is the creation of space with the matter so it can move.

You guys bang your head over the creation of something when the creation of a relative "nothing" (patterned void space) is what you should be looking/accounting for.

So you've no answer to my question then. Quelle suprise. And no, "because I think it is so" isn't an answer, and argument by incredulity isn't a rebuttal to those who disagree with you.

[Bunburryist]

There is often a tendency to fall into an "either/or" way of thinking; that if reality isn't like this, then it must be like that.  I found myself being content with finding no common belief believable - neither the religious/spiritual view, nor the materialist view.  Try to keep the "none of the above" option open when trying to understand what we are and what "the world" is.

[brewer]

I prefer K type alternatives with "none of the above" being an option.

[bennyboy]

There is often a tendency to fall into an "either/or" way of thinking; that if reality isn't like this, then it must be like that.  I found myself being content with finding no common belief believable - neither the religious/spiritual view, nor the materialist view.  Try to keep the "none of the above" option open when trying to understand what we are and what "the world" is.

I like to consider the possibility of an amiguous pluralism.  For example, it could be that the universe is in a state of superposition: it's neither material nor spiritual, individually one or the other, or both together.  It may be that the universe "behaves" as spiritual, or idealistic, or material depending on how we are interacting with it.

[Edwardo Piet]

If the Cosmological Argument seems reasonable to you, you've made at least one logical misstep. The argument is invalid.