How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument (page 2)

Deputy Dog

Darkl1ght3r

All effects require a cause. Therefore, there must be a first cause.

Just for fun. Could you name one effect that doesn't need a cause?

bohm

DD: Just for fun. Could you name one effect that doesn't need a cause?

oh no, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. If you are trying to support the cosmological argument, you must first DEFINE what you mean by cause and effect. THEN we can discuss if all effects need a cause.

VoidEater

Whether there is something Divine or not, it must be clear that most people, expecially of the past, and specifically theologians, have been in the grip of cultural assumptions (bordering on mass self-hypnosis) that there must be a God of a particular kind.

Such is the human psyche.

To understand something beyond limited human thinking, you must transcend limited human thinking (a corollary of Einstein's comment on solving problems).

Deputy Dog

bohm

you must first DEFINE what you mean by cause and effect. THEN we can discuss if all effects need a cause.

FGYBCHF uiawy vduevr eu dfue eueseuyys veiewigr 48748 4354 a u3y 63ryg86r8 232n 8w63 zz6 6$&^$&^>:K:?"K?<>b eytrc bys yst6awt wwyt t twwr6wr wwww uuweuz qwinx vergdfjjcf s osdfdifid nnaihoo 'oidssjns n bhzsgdghSV

Or you could look up "cause" and "effect" in the dictionary.

bohm

DD wrote: Or you could look up "cause" and "effect" in the dictionary.

fine, if that is your definition i will do that. From thefreedictionary.com (the first entries)

CAUSE: The producer of an effect, result, or consequence
EFFECT: Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.

So your definition is circular. You are asking darklight:

If all A's require B per definition, can you show me an A that does not require a B? Otherwise God exist!

I am not impressed with your attitude, but i do think you proove Darklights point excelently!

darkl1ght3r

GreyWolf: Sophisticated? I was writing tongue-in-cheek. What makes you think that what I've posted above is the extent of the arguments I could make against creationism? And you say I shoud "do some good reading"? That is so funny. You should see my bookshelf. I probably have more books supporting "your side" of the debate than you do. Although, granted, I haven't read the two you mention. I probably would if I had any reason to think that they simply weren't going to rehash the same old tired creationist arguments. And in regards to Anthony Flew, I am well aware of the reasons he changed his mind regarding the existence of a god... and they're dumb. Consider this quote from a letter to Ricard Carrier on SecWeb:

"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."

He makes a simple argument from ignorace. He is obviously quite unaware of the discoveries of modern biology. You do realize he had "help" writing that book, right? From Wikipedia:

In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article by religious historian Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book. [ 4 ] His book praises several philosophers (like Brian Leftow, John Leslie and Paul Davies), but Flew failed to remember their work during Oppenheimer's interview. The article provoked a public outcry, in which atheist PZ Myers called Varghese "a contemptible manipulator." [ 23 ]

So... well, check yourself before you start tossing around that "naive" word. And the very fact that you call Richard Dawkins "ignorant" about the philosophy of science, well it says alot. Take your own advice: Do some reading outside of you comfort zone.

BTS: I can't recall if he used it as a "proof" for atheism, and that might be taking it a bit far if he did. But the main crux of his argument was similar to the point I made above, in that creationists tend to use special pleading so that God himself does not require a designer, but all other life does. Which is a very valid point.

DD: Ummm... well, according to physicists, it's possible that quantum fluctuations are essentially "uncaused". But regardless, the argument you allude to assumes that the universe cannot always have existed in one form or another. So you could say that it's the present state of the universe that had a beginning. At this time, we have no way of knowing what came before that. And we certainly have to reason to assume it was a God that started it all.

Deputy Dog

bohm

...You are asking darklight:

If all A's require B per definition, can you show me an A that does not require a B? Otherwise God exist!

No I'm not! I won't put words in your mouth, if you don't put words in mine.

I simply asked if he knows of one effect that doesn't need a cause? He could say that not everything is an effect (and we would agree). What that thing or those things are, could lead to more discussion.

BurnTheShips

You have a PM, DD.

Deputy Dog

Darkl1ght3r

So you could say that it's the present state of the universe that had a beginning. At this time, we have no way of knowing what came before that. And we certainly have to reason to assume it was a God that started it all.

Thank you.

darkl1ght3r

Deputy Dog, I responded to your question in the post right above your last one. I gave you a possibility. I would also toss in virtual particles as well. However, I am NOT making a claim regarding the origins of the universe. I don't know what, if anything, caused the current state of our universe. I am merely pointing out possibilites that show the creationist claim I highlited above to be a baseless assertion.

EDIT: Oh, you're welcome!

How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

Share this