My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2011, 05:09 PM
 
RE: My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
(08-02-2011 04:44 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey.

I was just wondering, could either Unbeliever or Kthulu could explain to me why there doesn't need to be a cause?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Because a cause (in this case, a first cause for the universe) doesn't get us any further in explaining anything rational. A first cause simply justifies an already assumed logical premise: that what is needs something else in order to be. In other words, it is a way of molycoddling the psychological discomfort and cognitive dissonance that comes from not knowing ultimate answers to questions of infinite regress.
Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2011, 05:20 PM
RE: My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
Hey, Kthulu.

Yeah. Didn't follow you at all. Thanks for trying though. Could you slow it down a little for me?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2011, 05:40 PM
RE: My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
Well, I think it's important that I make it clear that I'm not saying that I know that there doesn't need to be a cause, only that we have no evidence that there has to be.

Since we don't know that there needs to be a cause, we don't need to assume that the universe has one, and thus the argument from first cause is invalid. It's as simple as that.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2011, 05:49 PM
 
RE: My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
(08-02-2011 05:40 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Well, I think it's important that I make it clear that I'm not saying that I know that there doesn't need to be a cause, only that we have no evidence that there has to be.

Since we don't know that there needs to be a cause, we don't need to assume that the universe has one, and thus the argument from first cause is invalid. It's as simple as that.

Perfectly expressed. You've put it much better than I did, and added things I didn't think of.
Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2011, 05:54 PM
RE: My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
For anyone who watched the Bill O'Reilly video and his comments about "where did the moon come from", this is the point he is really making. He's not actually commenting on why the tides go in and out as he knows it's the moon. His point is where did it all originate from. If you keep explaining it to him he will keep saying "where did that comes from" until you get to the Big Bang and he asks what caused it and what was here before and any honest person has to say "I don't know". And, of course, there is god, hiding behind it all.

It's a classic "god of the gaps" argument, basically, but don't confuse it with him not understanding how these things work.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2011, 06:26 PM
 
RE: My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
Of course any believer that try's to say everything needs a cause is really saying everything but God that is <eyeroll>

Or to use an actual quote from today on Facebook:

"I'm not a Bill O'Reilly fan, so my response is not a defense of him. God always was, is and will be; therefore, He was not created."

So There! <sticks tongue out>
Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2011, 06:43 PM
RE: My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
(08-02-2011 06:26 PM)Dregs Wrote:  "God always was, is and will be; therefore, He was not created."

That's one of those statements that my brain reacts angrily to. Like, neurons and synapses firing so hard, my hair caught fire.

Allow me a moment... grrrrr... acceptance of the infinite, but rejection that time is infinite.. grumble grumble... inside knowledge of this infinite being's specific attributes... capitalization of He... if God's a chick, she's gonna be pissed... maybe he/she's a tranny... rabble rabble...

Ah, much better. Yeah those are the types of FB responses I get as well. A well constructed, logically intriguing, thought provoking statement... responded to with a "well He is Lord, and Judgment will be paid, you'll see"

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2011, 07:51 PM
RE: My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
(08-02-2011 06:26 PM)Dregs Wrote:  "I'm not a Bill O'Reilly fan, so my response is not a defense of him. God always was, is and will be; therefore, He was not created."

Well, certainly can't argue with that logic.

oh, wait......

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2011, 08:45 PM
RE: My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
(08-02-2011 04:44 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey.

I was just wondering, could either Unbeliever or Kthulu could explain to me why there doesn't need to be a cause?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt


I would think that we don't actually know if there is a need for a cause or not. To assume a need for a cause is to place a burden of proof upon oneself. I personally would approach the problem in a different manner as it really comes off to me as the Kalam Argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2011, 08:48 PM
RE: My religious history and the one argument I have trouble with
Here's something that needs to be understood to fully understand why the first-cause argument fails. Time as we understand it is relative to the observer. This fact has been proven. Also, it is inextricably associated to space. So if the universe began with the big bang; all matter, energy, time and space associated with this universe also came into existence at that moment. There was no moment before. So if there was no time before that moment, there was also no space, no energy, no matter, nothing to cause anything, no time in which anything could be caused.

So the question is not how was the big bang caused? It wasn't. It happened, but it was uncaused. So we ask why did it happen? There are theories, but we don't know. We maybe can't know.

Let's say though that the reason it happened was because a breech occurred in the fabric of a different universe. Or lets say that it happened because a preceding universe crunched into singularity at the end of its time. Or let's say that it happened because everything in existence had reached a null state and that negative reality compelled positive reality. None of these things represent a "cause" in the sense that they temporally preceded the big bang. The big bang was the beginning of time as we experience it.

Why? Because whatever reason proves to be the truth, it didn't happen in our time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: