by darkl1ght3r 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
DD: Right. Your definition of cause and effect is the following (you said i should find it in the dictionary, and i remind you that these are the top entries)
CAUSE: The producer of an effect, result, or consequence
EFFECT: Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
So lets get back to your statement: I simply asked if he knows of one effect that doesn't need a cause?
You dont see any problems here?
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.
Infinite regression is a logical impossibility. There had to be a beginning of the series, no matter what you want to call it.
DD: Ummm... well, according to physicists, it's possible that quantum fluctuations are essentially "uncaused".
No, not uncaused. Indeterministic--at least to humans at the present time. And please don't trot out virtual particles, because that's the same. There is a clear cause for VPs, which is spacetime, we just can't predict when they will appear.
My God, I have shot these arguments down many many times here and they still keep bringing them back.
BTS
BTS: Dejavu :-).
"Infinite regression is a logical impossibility"
When you say logically impossible, there must be a logical/mathematical argument. Present it!
I think the discussion of virtual particles does no lead anywhere. Sure, if we accept that 'physical laws and spacetime' as a cause, virtual particles follow as an effect by definition. Now where does God enter into the picture?
Well, by innate brain freakiness (a very scientific term, don't you think? LOL) I mean that it's been proven that electro magnetic waves interfer with parts of the brain that can create hallucinations. There are certain things we naturally do that change brain chemicals, perception, neurological functions.
It's also been proven that intuition and empathy are normal human functions that sometimes seem paranormal, but aren't. Nearly everyone has these kinds of inexplicable experiences that get explained as "the paranormal" or "miracles" or "magic".
It's really magical enough to be a plain old human being, as it turns out. As I said, if you want to term the inexplicable as God or magic, be my guest.
Anything we don't understand is "magic" or "the gods" or whatever word you like for the inexplicable.
There's a whole universe full of things we don't understand. Eventually, we will understand more, but we'll never understand EVERYTHING. Not possible given our limitations.
I said to a good friend of mine who is an atheist (I have a good many atheist friends...after I quit demonizing "worldly" people, I've found some of their thinking a great counteragent to being raised in the non-logic of JWs that pretends to be logic) this very morning that if there is a God, then I doubt he's overly worried about getting lots of sacrifices and groveling from humans.
The very concept of a God that is greater than anything in this universe, which itself overwhelmingly difficult for humans to conceive of, rather precludes that a being that far removed from human experience would not have a great deal of interest in smelling incense, hearing chants or hymns or accepting the blood of animals or humans as some sort of guilt payment.
Those are things that have meaning to humans. Ritual makes strong psychological connections, lasting bonds, between humans and groups of people, there is the real meaning. God, gods, superhuman entities, why would they give a whiff about that stuff? They'd have to have a brain and senses much like ours for that to be so, and is that even possible for anything not human?
I don't deny that there could be a God, but the idea of God being your friend or your father is simply a human need. I don't even mind religion fufilling that psychological need as long as it's not harmful and we're all up front about the fact that we're all talking about "magic" here and not science.
After all, people can go to AA and say that the group is their "higher power" and it works exactly as well for them as people who imagine there is a God who is their "higher power" or support system.
We all end up parenting ourselves that is the goal of being a fully formed, mentally healthy human adult. If one needs to construct that self-parenting into a God or gods who act as that parental entity, then it's fine with me. I think some people actually do.
You can't make those needs that some religion fulfills for some people go away by ridiculing it or trying to deconstruct it. That just makes people defend it more. Even an abused "child" will defend an abusing parent. If the "child" is not abused, but feels loved unconditionally, they will have no reason to give that kind of emotional construct up.
Never tear down a person's emotional support system, regardless of how flawed or foolish or unreal you see it as until you can give them a better one to cross over to and replace it with.
That is why a lot of anti creationist arguments fall on deaf ears. It's why you can't convince Witnesses or any other cult members that they're involved in something harmful or untrue.
It's become their parenting structure, you can't take that away from them without a fight. It's not necessarily a matter of being able to reason or being stupid, it's a mindset of protecting the "parent" whether that is the religion or the God they feel is represented BY the religion.
This information is part of every what every person who helps someone exit a cult knows...but in lesser ways applies to getting anyone to get out of any irrational way of thinking.
Humans are so fond of large sweeping rationally unsound but emotionally satisfying and supportive concepts like God, patriotism, that sort of thing, that someone said that even if there was no God, we'd have had to invent him. We love to believe that the universe or the government gives a damn about us!
So, you can't deconstruct God or evolution or any deeply held concept based on emotional need without acknowledging why someone needs to believe this in the first place.
Oops. Clarification. I meant to say:
"And we certainly have NO reason to assume it was a God that started it all."
Infinite regression is a logical impossibility. There had to be a beginning of the series, no matter what you want to call it.
Incorret. We have no way of knowing whether or not it's possible or impossible. The word "infinity" is a label we put on a mathematical and/or philosophical concept. It may or may not have any bearing on reality. To say it's impossible is simply jumping to a conclusion that happens to support your view.
No, not uncaused. Indeterministic--at least to humans at the present time. And please don't trot out virtual particles, because that's the same. There is a clear cause for VPs, which is spacetime, we just can't predict when they will appear.
Shot down? Not so fast... I think you're misconstruing what I said. I said it's a possibility that these things are "uncaused", admittedly, at least in a colloquial sense. There a number of physicists that have made this point. I agree that they are indetermininstic. And your point about VPs is like saying fish are caused by the ocean. Just what is it about spacetime that causes the VPs to appear and disappear? If you (or anyone) could answer that you'd get a Nobel prize.
Infinite regression is a logical impossibility. There had to be a beginning of the series, no matter what you want to call it.
The prevailing form of logic is incredibly useful and yet incredibly limited and demonstrably flawed. Besides which, I've never seen a properly-formatted logical arument that concludes that an infinite regression is impossible. I think you're making the flaw of aruing from personal incredulity--you can't imagine or make sense of an infinite regress, so you dismiss it as impossible.
There only has to be a beginning to a finite series--an infinite series has no such restriction and can be extended infinitely in both directions from any arbitrary point--in this case, "now" on the timeline.
Darkl1ght3r
Oops. Clarification. I meant to say:"And we certainly have NO reason to assume it was a God that started it all."
It's as good (if not better) as any other presupposition.
We have NO reason to assume anything about the universe before the BIG BANG, except to ask what caused it. There was no "before (or time that we know of) the big bang". Agree or not, God would be a reasonable cause or presupposition.
To deny that the big bang effect, needs a cause, is violating your own rules.
Step 3Deny all evidence and logic that reveals the gaping hole in your argument.
DD: We have NO reason to assume anything about the universe before the BIG BANG, except to ask what caused it. There was no "before (or time that we know of) the big bang". Agree or not, God would be a reasonable cause or presupposition.
To deny that the big bang effect, needs a cause, is violating your own rules.
This debate is a lot better than the last we had about these questions.
The core hypothesis here is that it is meaningfull to say something CAUSED the big bang. I am not saying that is wrong, i am just pointing out that is a part of your statement and i will assume that is true. But if we can have an eternal thinking first-cause outside our universe operating under some 'meta-laws', why can we not have non-thinking first cause operating under 'meta-laws'? After all, most causes in our universe, ie the physical laws, seem not to be thinking!
