by BurnTheShips 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Our thinking is constrained by the universe we live in and the laws that it produces.
Before the universe existed, these laws didn't exist. Time didn't exist without gravity so there was no 'before' the universe. Time and space do not have to be infinite but we can't imagine the boundary.
We simply don't have enough information + God is shy.
I always thought premise 1 was that everything that EXISTS has a cause, not everything that begins to exist.
As far as I know, it has never been formulated that way. How could something without a beginning have a cause? There is no "before".
Here is a an different formulation of the same basic concept:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
This is why the God thing is so ridiculous. God exists, therefore he must have a cause. The God deal is really just special pleading.
No, it is not special pleading, the argument does not say that everything needs a cause but that that all contigent things, all things that had a beginning, have a cause.
BTS
No, I am not going to look it up, you used them as an example. If you are referring to what I think you are referring to, these do not violate causality, and your point is not a point. I wait for your response.
The quantum states of entangled particles instantaneously affect one another, even if the pair is separated by great relativistic distances. The "effect" of a change in quantum state on one particle is "seen" by the other particle before the "cause" really should be seen. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. So this would seem to indicate that the effect happens before cause. What exactly is going on is still being debated, but it is an example of a possible violation of normal causality. Whatever the case, it is definitely weird and interesting.
But as I said before, this has no bearing on our discussion; not really. The presupposition that all things that come into existence have a cause is a problem to both theists and atheists. Theists will conclude that "god" is exempt from this requirement for various reasons. Atheists will state that perhaps energy has always existed, or come up with some other possible hypothesis.
Both are speculations that cannot be proven to any degree of certainty. However, the "simpler" solution in my opinion is that a basic, fundamental "thing" such as energy has always existed; not a complex, intelligent being.
How would you?
We can conclude that our core assumptions are most likely correct because no evidence has been seen to the contrary. Would it be better to have a stronger way of "proving" it? Of course. But as we both have thought about in the past, when it comes down to it we can't.
The fact that these core assumptions are made is also meaningless to the debate at hand, because it affects both sides equally. But it is interesting to think about, nonetheless.
It is sound, providing its assumptions are true (I have no reason to think they aren't.) What I disagree with is fundamentalist naturalism, which is self-defeating.
In your opinion. Purely logical arguments can be made either way. In the end pure logic is not always correct; it doesn't always correspond with the real world.
No, it is not special pleading, the argument does not say that everything needs a cause but that that all contigent things, all things that had a beginning, have a cause.
But it is special pleading to say that "god" is the only non-contingent thing. It's all speculation; show me proof or evidences. Of course if you ask me to do the same with the idea that "energy" has always existed, I couldn't. We're both using special pleading.
The quantum states of entangled particles instantaneously affect one another, even if the pair is separated by great relativistic distances. The "effect" of a change in quantum state on one particle is "seen" by the other particle before the "cause" really should be seen. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. So this would seem to indicate that the effect happens before cause. What exactly is going on is still being debated, but it is an example of a possible violation of normal causality. Whatever the case, it is definitely weird and interesting.
Or information can travel faster than the speed of light under certain circumstances and we are merely looking at non-locality and non-determinacy (from the human perspective), not non-causality. Funny, how when I pray, that information is not subject to the speed of light barrier. :-P
Or the watcher watching influences reality. :-)
In the end pure logic is not always correct; it doesn't always correspond with the real world.
Or the world as we perceive it to be. Or many other things.
Going to go collapse some wave functions. ;-)
BTS
But it is special pleading to say that "god" is the only non-contingent thing.
No, it is not. The logic of the argument is that there was a non-contingent thing at the beginning of the chain of causality. A thing with no beginning. It does not say that there are no other non-contingent things.
BTS
The only thing that perhaps makes it "not" special pleading is that you justify the exception with logic. I do agree that logic indicates there is probably something eternal, without cause at the beginning since infinite causality seems to be a problem. Discussing the nature of this "thing" is confined to the realm of total speculation.
The only thing that perhaps makes it "not" special pleading is that you justify the exception with logic.
Seeing as to how special pleading is a logical fallacy, that makes it "not" special pleading, period.
I do agree that logic indicates there is probably something eternal, without cause at the beginning since infinite causality seems to be a problem.
So you concede the thing exists? I have a name for it.
Discussing the nature of this "thing" is confined to the realm of total speculation.
And the subject of another thread. ;-)
BTS
Seeing as to how special pleading is a logical fallacy, that makes it "not" special pleading, period.
Only if the logic is sound, which in this case I will concede that it is.
I admit I am used to arguing with a variation of this that is more common: someone will say "god must exist because the universe is so complext it must have been designed." Then I mention why doesn't god's complexity require a designer? "Well god is exempt from this for blah blah blah reason." That's special pleading.
So you concede the thing exists? I have a name for it.
I agree that logically there is probably something eternal, without cause. What you name it is irrelevant. When you claim it is some intelligent, complex being...some deity.. well, now you're in imagination land. I honestly don't see how you can see that as more "reasonable" than some basic, fundamental (unintelligent) force or property that has always existed without have any evidence to indicate such.
