Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Family Man · 05-21-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

No, uncaused events are logically impossible because they would have to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship thereby violating the law of noncontradiction. We also can logically assume that the cause of the universe has a personal aspect to it because of the law of sufficient cause. The universe contains personal beings and we know from experience that only persons can produce the personal. Therefore we can logically deduce that the cause of the universe is an intelligent personal being. As far as some uberverse, yes that may be the case but unlike theism there is absolutely no rational basis for believing such a thing exists.

The universe has a personal aspect?
The law of sufficient cause?
only persons can produce the personal?

What the hell is this?

ComestibleVenom · 05-21-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man
The universe has a personal aspect?
...
only persons can produce the personal?

I dunno, the universe is about as unpersonable as it could be, most of it being three degrees below absolute zero near thermal equilibrium...

Philosoft · 05-21-2003, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man
The universe has a personal aspect?
The law of sufficient cause?
only persons can produce the personal?

What the hell is this?

This is Ed. Ed's arguments consist of repeating these things over and over (without once explaining what they mean or how they are derived), as if to verbally bludgeon his opponent into submssion. Many people have attempted to penetrate Ed's cosmology, to no avail. I would advise you to avoid engaging Ed about these subjects. It will do no one any good.

Llyricist · 05-21-2003, 02:39 PM

Quote:

The universe has a personal aspect?
The law of sufficient cause?
only persons can produce the personal?

What the hell is this?

The law of scattershot assertions, make up enough laws and observations, and throw them out there too fast for the reader to question, and hope the "bigness" and "superior" "feel" of the assertions intimidates into acceptance. And Voila, a convincing pseudo-argument.

Family Man · 05-21-2003, 03:02 PM

Ah, sort of like Metacrock without the attempt to support his assertions.

Pyrrho · 05-21-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
The law of scattershot assertions, make up enough laws and observations, and throw them out there too fast for the reader to question, and hope the "bigness" and "superior" "feel" of the assertions intimidates into acceptance. And Voila, a convincing pseudo-argument.

Exactly. All that is then left to do is to say, "Let us pray."

Afghan · 05-21-2003, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man
The universe has a personal aspect?
The law of sufficient cause?
only persons can produce the personal?

What the hell is this?

Sounds like a rather shoddy rehash of the third step of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. But it's not a very good one. Mind you, nor was the original.

That one went, only the personal can act novelly, I think.

Volker · 05-22-2003, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
When you say that (P2) is the "weak" part of the argument, what do you mean? Do you mean that it is not as good as something like:

(P2') An infinite regression is possible.

would be?

Given your (P1) and (P2), I think instead of (C1), you should have something like:

(C1') Therefore, there is no reason to believe that there was a first cause.

We would also want to change (C4) to something like:

(C4') Therefore, we have no reason to believe that a God as a creator exists.

Furthermore, ABOSOLUTELY ALL of your experience is of things being transformed from one thing into another; you NEVER witness anything being created from nothing, or becoming nothing. So, the most natural thing to suppose is that the universe has always existed, in one form or other, not that it ever had a beginning.

Yes, I agree with you, your reformulation of my argument is far more sound than mine.

I, too, think that nothing rules an eternal existing universe out. So there is no need to think of a first cause, which makes a creator superfluous.

But I think we can even raise another objection. We know that something cannot come from nothing - but do we? We are living in an universe, and there is always something around us. In this universe, there are rules (natural laws). We assume (and have good reasons to do so) that these rules forbid that something comes out of nothing.

But when there is really nothing at all, there are no rules. Especially, there is no rule that specifies that something cannot come from nothing ... there is no rule that says "everything must have a first cause" etc.

I think this isn't as far-fetched as the assumption that there ever was a god. But I stll think that an eternal universe is still a more sound thing to assume.

Pyrrho · 05-22-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker
Yes, I agree with you, your reformulation of my argument is far more sound than mine.

I, too, think that nothing rules an eternal existing universe out. So there is no need to think of a first cause, which makes a creator superfluous.

But I think we can even raise another objection. We know that something cannot come from nothing - but do we? We are living in an universe, and there is always something around us. In this universe, there are rules (natural laws). We assume (and have good reasons to do so) that these rules forbid that something comes out of nothing.

But when there is really nothing at all, there are no rules. Especially, there is no rule that specifies that something cannot come from nothing ... there is no rule that says "everything must have a first cause" etc.

I think this isn't as far-fetched as the assumption that there ever was a god. But I stll think that an eternal universe is still a more sound thing to assume.

I don't recall saying that I knew that something cannot come from nothing. However, all of my experience conforms to that idea, and, evidently, so does everyone else's. And it seems, on the face of it, to be right. Until, that is, one reads what David Hume had to say about causation....

Sandslice · 05-23-2003, 06:23 AM

Yet, the problem of an "eternal existing universe" is that it cannot be used in science. By its nature, it cannot be empirically disproven, nor can reasonable attempts even be made. Whether this is a present limitation on our capacity to do so, or whether the big bang permanently removed any such capacity, to speak of such an eternal existence is as much a matter of faith as saying "godidit."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2003, 03:02 PM	#15
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Ah, sort of like Metacrock without the attempt to support his assertions.

05-23-2003, 06:23 AM	#20
Sandslice Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: SE Wisconsin Posts: 80	Yet, the problem of an "eternal existing universe" is that it cannot be used in science. By its nature, it cannot be empirically disproven, nor can reasonable attempts even be made. Whether this is a present limitation on our capacity to do so, or whether the big bang permanently removed any such capacity, to speak of such an eternal existence is as much a matter of faith as saying "godidit."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.