How can God be uncaused?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2012, 02:59 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2012 03:07 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: How can God be uncaused?
(24-08-2012 02:51 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Just use some critical and self-evaluating judgment on this one. Christians aren't wrong about everything, just as we aren't right about everything. This should be especially evident when one side has to erect a double-standard that allows their point to be true while the opponents' is false by the same standard. There are plenty of other reasons to disbelieve the God Hypothesis, but this isn't one of them.

Strawman.

The the purpose of the argument is to question the logical process as to which the theist (or deist) implies that the universe must have a beginning, but then asserts that their deity does not. How is it logical to add an unnecessary variable to the equation, when we know so little about events prior the Big Bang in the first place?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 03:00 PM
RE: How can God be uncaused?
(24-08-2012 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No. Physicists are looking for the cause.

Another assertion all by its lonesome.

(24-08-2012 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  String theory, for one.

Not a citation.

Look, I love research, and I want to be right... so I looked this one up. There are people looking into how a "big bang" type of event happens, but this isn't the same as trying to find out how a time-creating one happened. I'm not going to review all your posts, but I have a feeling that you yourself have argued at one time that causality requires time. And you didn't argue against my assertion that causality has to be rooted in an uncaused event to prevent an infinite regress. Look at the entire argument instead of trying to pick the parts that you believe you can refute. It's entirely possible that your bias has blinded you to the possibility that an uncaused universe (as well as an uncaused God) is a perfectly plausible and reasonable theory.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 03:06 PM
RE: How can God be uncaused?
(24-08-2012 02:59 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 02:51 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Just use some critical and self-evaluating judgment on this one. Christians aren't wrong about everything, just as we aren't right about everything. This should be especially evident when one side has to erect a double-standard that allows their point to be true while the opponents' is false by the same standard. There are plenty of other reasons to disbelieve the God Hypothesis, but this isn't one of them.

Strawman.

The the purpose of the argument is to question the logical process as to which the theist (or deist) implies that the universe must have a beginning, but then imply that their deity does not. How is it logical to add an unnecessary variable to the equation, when we know so little about events prior the Big Bang?

Since I wasn't debating any one person's specific stance here, the fact that it doesn't reflect your own stance doesn't make it a "strawman". I know logical reasoning inside and out. It's possible that I'll make a fallacious argument, but chances are I'll pick it up when I edit my own post.

You're right that we know so little about events prior to the Big Bang. Because of skepticism, we don't believe anything existed before it or caused it due to lack of evidence. Could a god have started it? Of course, for the reason you stated -- "we know so little about events prior to the Big Bang". Again, skepticism is what guides us to our assumption that no god was involved. But that doesn't prove that no god was involved, and there's no way to prove that a god requires a cause any more than we can prove that a universe requires one. Let go of the bias and concede this one -- it was a bad argument.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 03:10 PM
RE: How can God be uncaused?
(24-08-2012 03:00 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No. Physicists are looking for the cause.

Another assertion all by its lonesome.

(24-08-2012 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  String theory, for one.

Not a citation.

Look, I love research, and I want to be right... so I looked this one up. There are people looking into how a "big bang" type of event happens, but this isn't the same as trying to find out how a time-creating one happened. I'm not going to review all your posts, but I have a feeling that you yourself have argued at one time that causality requires time. And you didn't argue against my assertion that causality has to be rooted in an uncaused event to prevent an infinite regress. Look at the entire argument instead of trying to pick the parts that you believe you can refute. It's entirely possible that your bias has blinded you to the possibility that an uncaused universe (as well as an uncaused God) is a perfectly plausible and reasonable theory.

A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss

And, no, an uncaused creator is not plausible or reasonable. It assumes a complexity that a material universe does not.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 03:12 PM
RE: How can God be uncaused?
(24-08-2012 03:06 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You're right that we know so little about events prior to the Big Bang. Because of skepticism, we don't believe anything existed before it or caused it due to lack of evidence. Could a god have started it? Of course, for the reason you stated -- "we know so little about events prior to the Big Bang". Again, skepticism is what guides us to our assumption that no god was involved. But that doesn't prove that no god was involved, and there's no way to prove that a god requires a cause any more than we can prove that a universe requires one. Let go of the bias and concede this one -- it was a bad argument.

The problem with this argument is that any concept that a person attempts to place outside the laws of the natural world, by your logic, is equally correct. A celestial teapot could have created the Big Bang. It is illogical to add another variable.

No one is attempting to prove or disprove the theory of God creating the universe. I am arguing that it is illogical to posses a double standard in expectations. There is a fallacy in their scrutiny.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 03:17 PM
RE: How can God be uncaused?
(24-08-2012 03:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  And, no, an uncaused creator is not plausible or reasonable. It assumes a complexity that a material universe does not.

I'm thinking you believe an uncaused universe is plausible.

Do you believe infinite regress is plausible?
(sorry if you've already said so or not, don't feel like reading a lot..)

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 03:23 PM
RE: How can God be uncaused?
(24-08-2012 03:17 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 03:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  And, no, an uncaused creator is not plausible or reasonable. It assumes a complexity that a material universe does not.

I'm thinking you believe an uncaused universe is plausible.

Do you believe infinite regress is plausible?
(sorry if you've already said so or not, don't feel like reading a lot..)

No, infinite regress is not plausible - it is attempting to solve a problem with the same (or more complex) problem.

An uncaused universe doesn't make any sense. The cause of our universe may or may not be discoverable, but calling it 'uncaused' is just giving up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-08-2012, 03:29 PM
RE: How can God be uncaused?
(24-08-2012 03:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, infinite regress is not plausible - it is attempting to solve a problem with the same (or more complex) problem.

An uncaused universe doesn't make any sense. The cause of our universe may or may not be discoverable, but calling it 'uncaused' is just giving up.

Ok, so here's what I'm wondering.
(please point me to good resources if you have them)

There are so many differing views on causality and the problems of infinite regress concerning the universe.
So many people differ on this issue. And I don't mean a difference between the religious and the secular.
So many different Scientists and Astrophysicists seem to have different ideas or observations regarding this.

So, who do we go to? What great scientists do we follow for a firmer grasp on what is more plausible or reasonable concerning these issues?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 03:41 PM
RE: How can God be uncaused?
(24-08-2012 03:29 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 03:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, infinite regress is not plausible - it is attempting to solve a problem with the same (or more complex) problem.

An uncaused universe doesn't make any sense. The cause of our universe may or may not be discoverable, but calling it 'uncaused' is just giving up.

Ok, so here's what I'm wondering.
(please point me to good resources if you have them)

There are so many differing views on causality and the problems of infinite regress concerning the universe.
So many people differ on this issue. And I don't mean a difference between the religious and the secular.
So many different Scientists and Astrophysicists seem to have different ideas or observations regarding this.

So, who do we go to? What great scientists do we follow for a firmer grasp on what is more plausible or reasonable concerning these issues?

First, no one knows.
Second, it's ok not to know.
Third, it's not ok to say "This is it" without evidence.
Fourth, it's fun to read and investigate and ponder and discuss various ideas about it.

I read science and philosophy because scientists and philosophers have informed facts, theories, and hypotheses.
I don't read theologians because they don't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: