jdawg2

therefore, God has to be caused by something else right? And since that something else is something, something has to cause that something, and on and on we go...

You can't say everything has to have a cause, and then in the very next sentence weasle out the statement by saying "Oh, God doesn't count by the way..."

bd-from-kg

Media-1:

Eudaimonia suggested that your conclusion could be replaced with:

Your response was:

This reply misses the point entirely. Your argument is not evidential, but logical. Eudaimonia was pointing out that the logic is faulty, since the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises. Even if the argument established that there must be a “first cause”, there is simply no reason to assume that this “first cause” is an entity of any kind, or that if it is an entity it is one that anyone would call a being, or that if it is a being it is a conscious, willing, acting being, or that if it is, that it is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. And even if it is all these things, it could be the God of Deism, who set the universe going and then left it alone (perhaps preferring to spend its time creating other universes, or just watching the ones already created.) Or it might have created the universe for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with humans, or for any form of life for that matter. The development of life might simply be a side effect of its creating the universe for its own reasons – a side effect that it has no more interest in than it has in a rock on Pluto.

The comment about a “god who creates with intelligence and purpose for no reason at all” seems irrelevant. Who said anything about such a god?

Dr. Retard said:

You replied:

Again you missed the point. The point of this hypothesis isn’t to explain anything, but simply to show that the premise that “something can't come from nothing” does not yield the conclusion that there must have been a first cause. If the universe has always existed, everything had a cause- nothing ever came from nothing – but there was no first cause. This is crucial. The First Cause argument assumes that the universe had to “come from” something. This assumption must be justified if the argument is to have any plausibility at all.

Dr. Retard

OK, so the uncaused cause has always existed. Then it either existed from an eternal past or it has existed ever since the beginning of time. Here's my point: why is "something comes from nothing" any more possible than "something has always existed"? Both of them seem equally weird.

I don't understand this. Ex hypothesi, each event in the chain is explained by its predecessor. Is there something incoherent about that? If not, then all you are saying is that, were the infinite chain situation true, it would be inconvenient for science. But so what?

And even that doesn't seem right. Suppose that we found out that some observable event A was caused by some other event B, and then we found C, and after a while we found out that there shall continue to be an infinite chain of explanations, and we know an airtight formula for deriving each prior cause. Would you say that we have explained nothing?

In any case, do you think that this situation is somehow inconsistent or do you just think it would be a shame if it turned out to be true?

On this theory, nothing did and so for no reason. Remember, the idea was that the singularity was the uncaused first cause. Why is your question legitimate and "What caused God to create the universe?" an illegitimate question?

All cosmological arguments run into this problem, so far as I can tell: what reason is there for granting the theistic hypothesis a special status -- not needing a cause or not needing an explanation, etc. -- whilst insisting that every other hypothesis is subject to the same old requirements?

waxm

Media- 1. Something can't come from nothing. A first cause is required which is uncaused. (God)

Wax- This is the position of my current knowledge on the subject.
There must have been something that started the whole mess: That which was not created.
But this is not to say that:
A: The answer is there but remains unfound and unsolved to date.
B: A theology exists that could accurately represent this, uncreated entity or substance.

No one can actively argue against the concept of "God" existing at some point in time. But it is quite easy to argue against the "Christian" Gods existance.
And if there is a god that has influence in any way upon the existance of man, it has a few crimes to answer for.

YHWH666

lookin through the library and found this nifty little gem <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html</a>

its not THAT long and if you don't have less than the attention span of a hyperactive 8-year-old then i suggest you read it. it should prove enlightenting

Media-1

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jdawg2:
[QB]

"therefore, God has to be caused by something else right? And since that something else is something, something has to cause that something, and on and on we go...

You can't say everything has to have a cause, and then in the very next sentence weasle out the statement by saying "Oh, God doesn't count by the way..."

Everything that could possibly NOT exist requires a cause. By the Christian definition of God, God is in a separate category. God must exist and God can't NOT exist. This might sound too convenient, but definitionally speaking, it is accurate. Christians shouldn't be compelled to alter their concept of God just to seem "fair" and avoid the inconvenience (to atheists)of appealing to a second category of existence which requires no cause.

Media-1

bd-from-kg

Media-1:

At this point your “argument” looks like this:

(1) Your universe has the hitherto unsuspected property of being in need of a cause.

(2) I’ve got just the thing you need - a cause for your universe! I call it “Mablog”.

(3) Unlike your pitiful universe (and everything else, for that matter, Mablog has the remarkable property of not being in need of a cause.

Problem solved! But a couple of little things still bother me. First, the “problem” seems to be entirely of your making. I never guessed that the universe needed a cause until you told me so. And the “solution” is only a solution because you defined it to be one. I would never have had any idea that Mablog did not need a cause if you hadn’t told me so.

Tell you what. A while back I discovered an incurable disease called “tumpetharny”. And sad to say, it seems that you’re suffering from it. But don’t worry. As it happens I’ve just discovered a cure for tumpetharny, and I’ll glad to administer it to you. It will only cost you a million dollars. A cheap price for the rest of your life, no? Let me know if you’re interested.
__________________________________________________

If you want to make your argument a little more convincing, perhaps you can explain a couple of things. First, in what sense is it “possible” that something that exists might not exist? Second, in what sense can it be “impossible” for a thing that exists not to exist? Third, now that you’ve defined your terms, what are your grounds for believing that it’s “possible” for the universe not to exist, and what are your grounds for believing that it’s not possible for God not to exist?

HRG

[quote]Originally posted by Media-1:
[QB]It is also an empty definition, since the concept of a necessary being is self-contradictory. The sentence "X exists" for no X is a tautology.

Media-1

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bd-from-kg:
[QB]Media-1:

"If you want to make your argument a little more convincing, perhaps you can explain a couple of things. First, in what sense is it “possible” that something that exists might not exist?"


We know that certain species of dinosaurs have possible existence since they did actually exist. We also know that they can NOT exist because they are now exinct. The same is true of stars, planets, and asteroids. They can be created and destroyed. There are even many atheists who believe that new universes are continually being created. And if something has just been created, that "something" is contingent. It is not a necessary something.



"Second, in what sense can it be “impossible” for a thing that exists not to exist?"


If all of reality is dependent upon the concept of existence, then existence must necessarily be a characteristic of reality.


"Third, now that you’ve defined your terms, what are your grounds for believing that it’s “possible” for the universe not to exist, and what are your grounds for believing that it’s not possible for God not to exist"


Universes are conceptually understood as contingent things that can possibly come into existence and cease to exist. The way Christians conceive of God, He MUST exist. It is impossible by definition for God to be contingent.

Media-1

evildave

It doesn't matter whether any deity exists or not. This is the "wrong question" which will yield nothing but "wrong answers".

Try: "Does any faith or religion at all in existence have anything correct or relevant to say about the existence of a deity?"

On one hand there is the "reality" of what a deity or deities are (or are not), what such deities believe (or do not believe), and their policies (or lack thereof) towards humanity.

On the other hand there is what all the different religions tell us.

It is probably the difference between Calvin and Hobbes, the real historical philosphers, and Calvin and Hobbes, the comic strip.

Given the number of possibilities represented by different religions and sects of religions, we are covering a realm smaller than an electron (the amount of objective information about deities) and projecting the entirety of the universe from it. Sounds like a broad margin of error to me.

I don't have to prove or disprove a specific deity's existence. All I have to show is there is sufficient grounds to question whether some bible thumping door knocking moron is expressing a reality, or a seriously twisted notion of what he thinks reality "should be", based on all the bullshit from which his own personal religious insanity grew.

That's a more than adequate model for me to work with.

You should try it rather than engage one of these people in a "number of angels on a pin" discussion. They're far more practiced (on average) at not making any sense at all in a "believable" way than a rational person.