Help! (First Cause)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-09-2016, 03:45 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
What I think is the biggest problem with the argument is even if it held true, it still points nowhere else than "something caused the universe to exist". It specifies no particular deity or deities involved.

So yes, maybe someone could use it to make some sort of philosophical argument for a "prime mover"of sorts - but that's all the argument does. It doesn't say anything about Christianity, about Judaism, about Islam, Hinduism, etc. The most that it could ever argue for is the existence of some kind of creation force, and even then the argument is kinds dodgy and circular.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2016, 04:00 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(12-09-2016 04:42 AM)morondog Wrote:  There's a more subtle argument which goes as follows:
1. What is a "cause"?
2. What is the justification for axiom (a) above? Why should I believe that everything that exists has a cause? And why should I be so arrogant as to believe that this assumption about the entire universe of which I am part of a tiny portion, is true.

I use the analogy of a hammer.

What caused a hammer to exist?

When a wooden handle was stuck inside a metal head?

When a tree was cut down and carved up to make the wooden handle? When the metal ore was dug out the ground, refined and melted down to produce the head?

When a seed landed in the ground to grow a tree or when the Earth first formed?

You can go back all the way to the big bang.

The fact is, atoms are just being rearranged. Talking about a first cause is equivocation. It introduces an artificial constraint on the argument and tries to limit the answers available to the person they are trying to convince.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
16-11-2016, 11:01 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
All arguments for God set out to provide arguments for God's existence. Existence is a self evident truth.

"Existence exists" -- Ayn Rand.

An uncaused existence needs no God.

KISS - keep it simple stupid.

The concept that 1 + 1 = 2.
A question to ask any theist - "Why does 1 + 1 = 2 need a god to be true."
The argument: Self evident truths do not need any kind of god to be true. Therefore any kind of god is not needed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 11:37 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(12-09-2016 02:22 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  #3 "First cause" is a philosophical argument. If he really wants to find out about whats real or not, he has to apply science.

From the Carl Sagan book "The demon-haunted world"

"The physicist has an idea. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it seems to make. He consults the scientific literature. The more he reads, the more promising the idea becomes. Thus prepared, he goes to the laboratory and devises an experiment to test it. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are checked. The accuracy of the measurement refined, the error bars reduced. He lets the chips fall where they may. He is devoted only to what the experiment teaches. At the end of all this work, through careful experimentation, the idea is found to be worthless. So the physicist discards it, frees his mind from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded as he raised his glass high, is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory"



In my view, sure there is a conundrum about why we have stuff rather than nothing, about where did it all come from, about whether it came from somewhere or whether it always existed. About why we have such low entropy.

But the flip side is also a conundrum, how can a god always have existed? How can the existence of a god predate existence itself? What is the god made of? How can a god have knowledge before there was existence and observable things (a.k.a. data and information). How can the god think and take action if it "existed" in an environment without time?
If you are to presuppose the existence of an all powerful, all knowing, timeless god then you are ignoring all these challenges. If you are willing to ignore all these challenges then why are you not willing to ignore all the challenges from the materialistic alternative? It seems your desired outcome is already chosen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 12:27 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 11:01 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Existence is a self evident truth.

I dispute that. You can *take* it as axiomatic and build your logic from there, but I'm not willing to say that some statement made of words that are not even clearly defined is "true" in the real world.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 02:05 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2016 02:08 PM by Peter Slevon.)
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 12:27 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 11:01 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Existence is a self evident truth.

I dispute that. You can *take* it as axiomatic and build your logic from there, but I'm not willing to say that some statement made of words that are not even clearly defined is "true" in the real world.
Alright. Then what do you define as true? What makes anything evidence, let alone self evident? Things that exist constitute what is true, do they not?

Take space for example. Space is invisible except by what we can see and measure in a space. The things in a space are not the space. Space is more than the things in space. Space, space-time is existence as we experience existence. Space exists. Space and existence can be understood as two different types of existence. In that space has an existence and that space is a type of existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 02:16 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
This kinda crap seeks to reduce god to axiomatic, which is ridiculous.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 02:16 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(28-09-2016 03:45 AM)ViolexTV Wrote:  What I think is the biggest problem with the argument is even if it held true, it still points nowhere else than "something caused the universe to exist".
What is even meant by "caused the universe to exist"?
What is meant by the term "Universe"?

We know that there was a beginning in terms of expansion of our observable universe, but "beginning to expand" is not synonymous with "beginning to exist". Our observable universe is a very large collection of energy and particles. The question might be more apt to ask why we have energy fields with certain properties? Whether these energy fields ever had a beginning? Why do we have low entropy instead of some kind of heat death?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 02:26 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(11-09-2016 09:03 PM)Unfallen_Skeptic Wrote:  So here's the thing I want to start: What do you think, must there be a prime mover?

Only if it can be demonstrated that the material foundation of the universe is non-eternal, rather than just the transformation of always-existing matter and energy. That's something we may never be able to prove or disprove, as we cannot currently see "before" the Big Bang.

Even if there was a starting point, this does not point to a sentient personal god. Such a being would be sufficiently complex that it would require an even more convoluted explanation -- And saying "God always existed" is just an excuse designed to halt debate on the matter.

A first cause (if indeed such a thing exists) could be as simple as a quantum blip wherein a tiny piece of nothing became a tiny piece of something.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 02:45 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 02:05 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Take space for example. Space is invisible except by what we can see and measure in a space. The things in a space are not the space. Space is more than the things in space. Space, space-time is existence as we experience existence. Space exists. Space and existence can be understood as two different types of existence. In that space has an existence and that space is a type of existence.
Space isn't exactly invisible.
Space isn't a substance.

Space is a conceptual three dimensions. Much like the number 1 is a concept and a circle is a concept.
Thing is, these three dimensions don't really exist.

Take the moon for example. It's travelling in a straight line and yet it appears to orbit in an ellipse around the Earth and a near circle around the Sun and it's also rotating around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

SpaceTime is a much better way at conceptualising the coordinates around us and the movement of things through those coordinates. Just as the moon's path "curves" without any forces being present as it travels near to the Earth, so does the path of massless light, just at a far less pronounced curve. The curvature is dependant on the speed of the object (amongst other things). The moon travels far more slowly than a particle of light.

Nothing travels faster than light and yet light curves through space in the presence of "gravity". All massive particles (as opposed to massless particles) cause gravity. The effects of gravity pervade all through space. But does gravity have effects (i.e is gravity a force?) or is gravity just a label we put onto the curvature of spacetime?

Anyway, what I am getting at is that space is merely a concept, it isn't an actual existent thing. The space concept is a simplification, a theoretical construct, its attributes are x, y and z coordinates. It does not have attributes of substance, colour, weight, shape, size.
When two objects occupy different coordinates, are tempted to say that there is "space" between those two objects as if space is a substance that fills all the coordinates between. This is loose talk though. There really is no such thing as Euclidian space except for in our conceptual views. There really is no such thing as an absolute x,y,z coordinate system except for in our conceptual views. Einstein has shown us that time and distance are relative not absolute.

Truth is supposedly absolute. Time and distance can hence not be termed as truth. Hence SpaceTime is not truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: