The go a little easy on theists thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2014, 02:31 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
*Raises hand*

Just a question.

So...winding the time frame of the Universe backwards, we get to the big expansion of everything.

So...the point/place before this....why must there be any sort of intelligence there? Or related to it?

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 02:24 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 01:59 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  You're still getting ahead of yourself.

No one has ever seen the universe be created, so, anything regarding how it was created will be an assumption.

Sure, everything we've observed has had a cause. Now, that might make you tempted to to say that it is "reasonable" to assume that the universe must have a cause, because everything else we've seen has one. I can see where you'd get that. The problem is: what caused the universe? God? Well, what caused him?

Now, do you see the problem? You're going to have to explain that away with some sort of special pleading, like saying "God is eternal" or "God is timeless". That leaves us with two very important, and unanswered questions:

1) Why? Because you say so? Because your argument depends on it?

2) How do you know the universe doesn't possess those same qualities? Did you see the creation of the universe?


So, that being said, I'd say the negation of your premise is as unknowable and plausible as your unfounded premise itself.

I won't go too much into the argument that we've already had, but I think the whole question really comes down to this:

Is it reasonable to believe that an infinite cause and effect chain could exist?

If the answer is yes, then you have the infinite universe as your answer.

If the answer is no, then you need a first cause (one which does not require a cause of it's own) in order to break the infinite regress.

Feel free to let me know if I have missed something and am presenting a false dichotomy.

Oh, look, here goes NOTlookingforanswers with his Special Pleading. As usual.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 02:31 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Raises hand*

Just a question.

So...winding the time frame of the Universe backwards, we get to the big expansion of everything.

So...the point/place before this....why must there be any sort of intelligence there? Or related to it?

Very much cheers to all.

Well, if there is a first cause then it has to be such that it required no cause itself, therefore, it must be ever-existent. In other words, it existed for infinity before the creation of the universe. So, why did it create the universe a specific finite time ago, as opposed to an infinite number of other finite times ago? What caused it to spontaneously jump into action and create the universe?

We can't answer this question with any external cause, as the external cause would then require an explanation, which just opens up another infinite regress issue. However, if the first cause is an "agent" (something with intelligence) then it could spontaneously choose to create a universe with no external cause, solving the issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
P.S. It's kind of cool to have a stalker Taqiyya
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 03:02 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Well, if there is a first cause then it has to be such that it required no cause itself, therefore, it must be ever-existent. In other words, it existed for infinity before the creation of the universe. So, why did it create the universe a specific finite time ago, as opposed to an infinite number of other finite times ago? What caused it to spontaneously jump into action and create the universe?

We can't answer this question with any external cause, as the external cause would then require an explanation, which just opens up another infinite regress issue. However, if the first cause is an "agent" (something with intelligence) then it could spontaneously choose to create a universe with no external cause, solving the issue.

Nope, I've heard that explanation before and it still isn't making sense to me.

Also...if said 'intelligent' first cause was 'outside' everything...Then doesn't that put it something like 13 Billion years away from us? Not exactly some where it's going to be poking things from...Is it?

*Hence where I've posted about its characteristics being more like those of Cthonian Elder Gods, than anything else...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2014 03:18 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 02:14 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 12:08 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nobody should ever debate WLC, he's a worthless hack. Drinking Beverage

If so, then Dawkins should have welcomed the opportunity. Seriously, the opportunity to debate with a worthless hack who also happens to be one of those more famous Christian apologists? Seems like an easy target and a golden opportunity.


Not even. As Dawkins has said, debating WLC would look great on Craig's CV, but not Dawkin's. While Dawkins has taken the time to debate theists, including high ranking members of the Anglican Church; WLC is a disingenuous hack who openly admits (it's recorded and on YouTube) that nothing will ever change his mind because he knows he is right through the self-authenticating power of the holy spirit. He debates as a means of witnessing as a Christian. He's a control freak and will only debate if and when he has complete control over the proceedings, so that he can gish-gallop all over the place instead of having any real intellectual exchange. WLC has also himself refused to debate people who he knows can kick his ass, like his former student John W. Loftus (with the weak excuse that he only debates PhD's, ignore the fact that he has debated other non-PhD's before).


The man cheapens the word 'philosopher' by mere association. Dodgy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-02-2014, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2014 10:21 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 03:02 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Well, if there is a first cause then it has to be such that it required no cause itself, therefore, it must be ever-existent.


Nope. If we can assume an ever-existent first cause, then we can just as easily assume an ever-existent universe without cause and save ourselves a step. To insist otherwise is special pleading.


(04-02-2014 03:02 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  In other words, it existed for infinity before the creation of the universe. So, why did it create the universe a specific finite time ago, as opposed to an infinite number of other finite times ago? What caused it to spontaneously jump into action and create the universe?


Entirely unsupported presuppositions.



(04-02-2014 03:02 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  We can't answer this question with any external cause, as the external cause would then require an explanation, which just opens up another infinite regress issue.


Once again, merely inventing a cause that is simply by definition exempt from infinite regress is nothing more than special pleading. You are asking for a special exception to get around the rules for your prefered explanation. In case you haven't' figure it out yet, that is a logical fallacy.



(04-02-2014 03:02 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  However, if the first cause is an "agent" (something with intelligence) then it could spontaneously choose to create a universe with no external cause, solving the issue.


Outside of your personal penchant for ancient mythology, there is no reason to entertain that this idea is even within the remotest realm of possibility.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-02-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 03:07 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 03:02 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Well, if there is a first cause then it has to be such that it required no cause itself, therefore, it must be ever-existent. In other words, it existed for infinity before the creation of the universe. So, why did it create the universe a specific finite time ago, as opposed to an infinite number of other finite times ago? What caused it to spontaneously jump into action and create the universe?

We can't answer this question with any external cause, as the external cause would then require an explanation, which just opens up another infinite regress issue. However, if the first cause is an "agent" (something with intelligence) then it could spontaneously choose to create a universe with no external cause, solving the issue.

Nope, I've heard that explanation before and it still isn't making sense to me.

Also...if said 'intelligent' first cause was 'outside' everything...Then doesn't that put it something like 13 Billion years away from us? Not exactly some where it's going to be poking things from...Is it?

*Hence where I've posted about its characteristics being more like those of Cthonian Elder Gods, than anything else...

Meh, if you don't like the explanation, that's fine. Just, if you accept the existence of a first cause, then I think it is the most logical conclusion. If you have a better explanation though, I'd be genuinely interested to hear it.

As for the 13 Billion years away thing, remember, I'm a deist, so my thought on the matter is that the creator does not intervene in daily events. I liken it more to a clockmaker. The clockmaker assembles the parts of the clock and sets it going. Based on the initial conditions he sets within the clock, he knows how the clock is going to function. He doesn't need to continually manipulate the clock to ensure that it will read 2pm at the right time. The clock will do that itself based on the initial conditions set at the time of it's creation.

If there is a creator powerful enough to create a universe, and intelligent enough to create a universe that hasn't collapsed in on itself in the past 13B years and can actually sustain life, then is it such a jump to believe that creator would have known that humans with intelligence would eventually evolve to inhabit this chunk of rock floating in space? After all, the initial conditions required for life to exist are unimaginably precise, and the creator would also have the advantage of knowing how the pieces in the universe work much more intimately then any watchmaker could (because he presumably created those pieces out of nothing). How much he could predict past there is a question, the answer to which changes depending on whether you believe that human kind has true free will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 04:15 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
EvolutionKills, ugh, why do you guys seem to like using the term special pleading so much? Seriously, I think I've responded to this so many time it's kind of ridiculous. You can't have a logical fallacy that applies to a conclusion, only a logical fallacy that applies to an argument. Consider the argument constructed like this:

P1: Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
P2: A causal loop cannot exist.
P3: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

You can attack a premise (ie. you can say you believe a causal chain of infinite length can actually exist) or you can attack the logical progression of the argument, but you can't say that the "first cause" is a special pleading, because it is the conclusion.

Saying "special pleading" in response to the cosmological argument is the equivalent of saying, "I don't like your conclusion, so it's wrong Tongue".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: The go a little easy on theists thread
(04-02-2014 04:15 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  EvolutionKills, ugh, why do you guys seem to like using the term special pleading so much? Seriously, I think I've responded to this so many time it's kind of ridiculous. You can't have a logical fallacy that applies to a conclusion, only a logical fallacy that applies to an argument. Consider the argument constructed like this:

P1: Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
P2: A causal loop cannot exist.
P3: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

You can attack a premise (ie. you can say you believe a causal chain of infinite length can actually exist) or you can attack the logical progression of the argument, but you can't say that the "first cause" is a special pleading, because it is the conclusion.

Saying "special pleading" in response to the cosmological argument is the equivalent of saying, "I don't like your conclusion, so it's wrong Tongue".

Saying "a first cause exists according to such and such premises" is not special pleading.

Saying you know what it is, on the other hand...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: