Eudaimonist

There's a very simple reason.

When you say everything has a cause, what you mean is that the FORM everything takes has a causal explanation. Stars condensed out of clouds of gas. Human beings are a result of natural selection. Cars are built by the mental and physical effort of human beings from raw materials. Etc. Yes, we can see this causation.

However, we don't see that the EXISTENCE of everything has a cause. Matter, energy, and spacetime may change form, but we don't see anything in the way of creation ex nihilo.

So it is not at all clear that causation even applies to the existence of things, irrespective of form.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonia ]</p>

WJ

All!

"...most of the atheists sound more like agnostics in their definition of atheism."

Correct!

This issue relates to Being and has nothing to do with anthromorp.. Further when someone says some 'thing' is logically impossible, you objectify the concept. Objectification of Being is a half-truth. When we use language, we logically objectify ourselves which only speaks to half of the mind body phenomenon-human existence.

The atheist should stay silent on the matter, or prove God doesn't exist or, become agnostic. As of yet, I've not read anything that can convince us [believer's] of their position that such a Being cannot exist.


Walrus

Godless Sodomite

Why should we assume that the set (the universe) is subject to the same properties as members of the set (things in the universe)? The cause/effect relationships you're pointing to all occur within the universe. To suggest that the universe itself is subject to a cause/effect relationship, you'd have to be on the outside looking in and/or know something about things that are extra-universal. Unless someone can evidence anything extra-universal, I have no reason to believe there is such a thing.

Regarding atheist/agnostic: To my understanding atheist is a statement regarding the belief in deity--we have no god belief. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a knowledge statement--no knowledge. You'll note that anytime a theist retreats into "god works in mysterious ways" territory, they're expressing an agnostic mindset.

-Jerry

Not Prince Hamlet

Heh. By the same argument, if I went to a stable and all I saw were brown horses, there must only be brown horses in the entire world. Why should the rest of the world be different from that one stable?

Of course a god is possible. It's also possible that the the universe was created by Gumby, and that it's turtles all the way down.

Most atheists will admit to the possibility, but possibility does not equate to most likely.

We've been through all this before, though. I recommend that before proceding, you check out my challenge in the George the Turnip thread. In it, I implicity address the problem of the most likely solution given the assumption that the divine exists.

Jeff

P.S. Love your nickname, though. Great book. Great film, too.

Viti

This is insane

Do you believe in garden fairies? Can you prove beyond a doubt that garden fairies do not exist? So do you disbelieve in garden fairies or do you believe there are no garden fairies? You cannot discuss fairy lore without conceding that it is possible for fairies to exist you know.

"I do not believe in a god", is not the same as stating "I believe there is no god".

Synaesthesia

Atticus,
First of all Atticus, if it is true that “Logically, all phenomenon must have a cause” than god is logically impossible. I do not grant this assumption as you formulate it, without it your argument fails.

Secondly, it should be noted that classical notions of newtonian causation are incomplete. We are beginning to realize that cause and effect is a considerably more complex issue and may itself be a form of something more fundamental. We simply cannot fully appreciate the ramifications of physical laws through prepositional arguments such as the one you present.

The formation of an electron-positron pair has no cause in the traditional sense.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

WJ

Jerry said one thing that I believe physics can support: the mystery of the universe.

However, whether it is theism, agnosticism, or atheism, they are all based on an epistemological belief system viz. knowledge of ontological essences as derived from our existence (conscious existence). We are thinking Beings; that we cannot escape. Regarding Deity, why do we think the way we do?

TMC.

Walrus

Kvalhion

The theistic double standard in this thread is laughable. First they make a positive assertion, then they claim that any discussion of that positive assertion only shows that the positive assertion is possible.

The common sense response: So what??

What is possible is only limited by your imagination. What is plausible is far more limiting. I assume theists believe that the existence of God is plausible, yet they would rather spend time attacking any argument made against them rather than trying to prove what they have asserted. Such tactics are tired and useless.

As others have pointed out time and again, the same standard on which theists would like to examine the possibility and plausibility of a god is not the same standard used to examine any other amount of possible things. And yet theists give a deer-in-headlights look when atheists give no more credibility to theist's myths than to any other myth.

Take a look at the contrasting behavior between atheists and theists. Theists use their god concept as eyes in which to view the world. Notice that the god concept doesn't actually do anything, it is simply offered as an excuse for everything.

If I had x-ray vision glasses ( ), I would view all humans as naked. Would my perception of everyone being naked make them so? Would it affect the reality of anyone other than myself?

The fact is that theists enjoy no special advantages or privileges than atheists do. They are no more protected from murderers, rapists, child molesters, violence, poverty, nor are they any more prosperious, healthy, or lucky than anyone else regardless of belief. Stastics do not lie. You cannot put on obscurring lenses to change them.

How do atheists behave? That is simple. The lack of belief does not influence behavior. Where a theist prays, goes to church, thank's god for everything, speaks in tongues, etc, atheists do not alter their behavior in regards to theism because they do not have a belief in theism. The same standard applies to invisible pink elephants. People who do not believe in invisible pink elephants do not alter their behavior patterns to accomodate the belief in invisible pink elephants.

Of course, the exception to this is when atheists have no choice but to confront other people's beliefs since those other people usually wish to project their beliefs upon others, by compelling them through law or other means to change their behavior pattern. Is this really that surprising? One may not believe in the use of guns, yet when a loaded gun is pointed at him, what choice does he have but to address the issue? An immature pro-gun person would probably holler and shout victoriously and state "So you do believe in the use of guns afterall!" Anyone with common sense would be able to see this is certainly not the issue.

As much as theists would like to obscure the issue, the fact remains that atheists live in such a way that works for them. If left alone, theism would likely rarely be an issue. Too bad, in reality, theists insecurity prevents this from being possible. This thread is a good example of that.

Atticus_Finch

My statement that "all phenomena must have a cause" was premised upon the assumption that there is no god or supernatural. It is my contention that it is logically inconsistent to assert that there is no god or supernatural when you can not state as fact where matter came from or that it has always been. You may chose to believe that the universe has always existed but you can only accept that on faith at this point because there is no evidence for that fact.

I believe in god and the supernatural so I am logically consistent when I state that god, by definition eternal, needs no first cause.

It appears however, that I have succeeded in moving this discussion to the point where we agree that one can not rule out the possible existence of god. Therefore, it is time to move on to the proof for the existence of god in general and more particularly the god revealed in the Christian bible.

I will begin that effort in my next post.

Regards,

Finch

Kvalhion

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by stating that was your premise in the first place. You no more succeeded in having people agree in the possibility of a god than you succeeded in the idea that there is a possibility of insibile pink elephants, tooth faeries, santa claus, or a great number of any subjects. You didn't exactly reinvent the wheel with that premise. Good luck in trying to show that the existence of God is plausible. You'll need it.