Does creation need a creator, as per reason?

[joe370]

I have no faith in atheism.

Why not?

 

[joe370]

Unfortunately, that sounds exactly like Ray Comfort’s chief “argument” - creation needs a creator. First, you have to demonstrate that everything that exists - the universe - is actually an entity that requires deliberate creation, rather than natural development/evolution. Then you can start speculating about the nature of the creator. This seems necessary, since the purported “creator” seems rather reluctant to reveal him/her/itself directly.

And when that is sorted out, you might like to answer the question - who or what created the creator?

No I don’t; I live by faith. I did not start this thread to demonstrate anything, for I cannot prove anything regarding my faith. I am not challenging the natural development of things either. I am asking quite simply: how can something (natural development and evolution of the universe) come from nothing? That’s illogical. Can anyone prove that the universe either, always existed or is self-generated? If no one can then it becomes clear that atheism is a faith-based belief as well; that’s all.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No I don’t; I live by faith. I did not start this thread to demonstrate anything, for I cannot prove anything regarding my faith. I am not challenging the natural development of things either. I am asking quite simply: how can something (natural development and evolution of the universe) come from nothing? That’s illogical. Can anyone prove that the universe either, always existed or is self-generated? If no one can then it becomes clear that atheism is a faith-based belief as well; that’s all.

Do you also think that a person that identifies as an atheist of some type that says that she doesnt know how the universe was formed is also using faith? For the sake of not being ambiguous lets say this particular atheist is an agnostic atheist: she doesnt asset that there are any gods. Nor does she assert there are absolutely no gods either.

 

[Bakmoon]

You aren’t gonna pull the ol’ - then who created God thing are you? LOL…Just kidding…Yeah, that seems reasonable.

Good. Okay, now we have to examine the argument in a little bit more detail. Let’s look at statement one, that everything has a cause. What is our justification for this? This statement is justified by inductive reasoning. All observed things have causes, and so by induction, we extrapolate this to be the general statement that all things have a cause.

The problem is that this extrapolation is done based entirely on the things which are contained inside the universe itself, and so it is unclear how these things can be extrapolated onto things which are not contained within the universe, such as the universe itself. Let me show you why.

When you try to extrapolate this principle to the universe itself, you run into a problem, as you are deriving a principle from the pieces of something (i.e. everything in the universe) and are then extrapolating it to the system as a whole (that is to say, the universe itself). This is the fallacy of composition. Allow me to illustrate the fallacy of composition.

1. System A is made out of pieces
2. All of the pieces of system A posses property B
3. Therefore System A possesses property B

This is what the fallacy of composition looks like, and your argument is an example of it. Allow me to put your argument into this form to demonstrate:

1. The Universe is made out of finite things
2. All finite things are caused
3. Therefore the Universe is caused

It is the fallacy of composition, just like in the previous example. It is fallacious deduce that a system possesses a property simply because every piece of it does.

This is just a general criticism of the form of your argument. We could examine other issues involved as well if you like.

 

[belorg]

Why not?

Because my atheism does not require faith.

 

[joe370]

Because my atheism does not require faith.

Based on actual proof?

 

[joe370]

Good. Okay, now we have to examine the argument in a little bit more detail. Let’s look at statement one, that everything has a cause. What is our justification for this? This statement is justified by inductive reasoning. All observed things have causes, and so by induction, we extrapolate this to be the general statement that all things have a cause.

The problem is that this extrapolation is done based entirely on the things which are contained inside the universe itself, and so it is unclear how these things can be extrapolated onto things which are not contained within the universe, such as the universe itself. Let me show you why.

When you try to extrapolate this principle to the universe itself, you run into a problem, as you are deriving a principle from the pieces of something (i.e. everything in the universe) and are then extrapolating it to the system as a whole (that is to say, the universe itself). This is the fallacy of composition. Allow me to illustrate the fallacy of composition.

1. System A is made out of pieces
2. All of the pieces of system A posses property B
3. Therefore System A possesses property B

This is what the fallacy of composition looks like, and your argument is an example of it. Allow me to put your argument into this form to demonstrate:

1. The Universe is made out of finite things
2. All finite things are caused
3. Therefore the Universe is caused

It is the fallacy of composition, just like in the previous example. It is fallacious deduce that a system possesses a property simply because every piece of it does.

This is just a general criticism of the form of your argument. We could examine other issues involved as well if you like.

This makes logical sense to me:

1. The Universe is made out of finite things
2. All finite things are caused
3. Therefore the Universe is caused

I do not understand why the following proves that the universe is without a cause; perhaps you could elaborate?

1. System A is made out of pieces
2. All of the pieces of system A posses property B
3. Therefore System A possesses property B

 

[Bakmoon]

This makes logical sense to me:

1. The Universe is made out of finite things
2. All finite things are caused
3. Therefore the Universe is caused

It may match up with your intuitions, but the argument isn’t actually logically valid. It commits the fallacy of composition, which is a logical error. In brief, the fallacy of composition is the erroneous deduction that because all the parts of a system have a certain property, it follows that the whole system must also have this property. The fallacy of composition is a logical error. Do you see how your argument commits the fallacy of composition?

I gave the second example as a clear example of BAD reasoning, not good reasoning. The second example blatantly commits the fallacy of composition, and is invalid. The first one is in the same form as the second one, and so it is also invalid.

 

[Equites_Christi]

Hello Bakmoon!

You seem a very smart person and it will be a pleasure talking to you. Here is my argument:

An infinite regress is impossible because effects only take place once they are caused. A domino falls once it is pushed, not before it is pushed.

To say there is an infinite regress of ‘universes’ is like putting an infinite number of dominoes at the head of the line: the dominoes will never fall, because you will never push the first one, because there will never be a first one from which a chain of causation may proceed.

However, we find ourselves in the midst of a chain of causation. I came from mom who came from grandma who came from cave woman, etc. We see the fallen dominoes. Therefore there must be a beginning, because of the fact of causation. But we know this cannot happen in an infinite regress, as discussed above. That means that there must be an anomaly, something which started on its own - an uncaused cause. The only way to deny this is to deny that causation is real.

Now, from this argument, nothing necessitates this eternal “first cause” to be the Christian God. But it does mean that we cannot hold to an infinite regress.

As for your interesting idea (IIRC) that time expands in opposite directions, then that means there must be a center from which the two directions expand. Even if you think of a sphere which expands in all directions, it must come from a center.

Thoughts?

 

[joe370]

Bakmoon;9696785]It may match up with your intuitions, but the argument isn’t actually logically valid. It commits the fallacy of composition, which is a logical error. In brief, the fallacy of composition is the erroneous deduction that because all the parts of a system have a certain property, it follows that the whole system must also have this property. The fallacy of composition is a logical error. Do you see how your argument commits the fallacy of composition?

I understand that the preceding matches up with your intuitions. Personally (and I am trying) I do not see an erroneous deduction. I think what you are suggesting is: just because all the parts of a system (parts within the universe) have a certain property ( a caues) it does not follow logically, that the whole system (universe) must also have this same property? In other words, just because everything within the universe (or universes) requires a cause doesn’t mean that the universe itself requires a cause? Well, if that is correct I will definitely give it some thought but I know I am going to end up with a headache. LOL…

I gave the second example as a clear example of BAD reasoning, not good reasoning.

Oh…My bad…

 

[Bakmoon]

In other words, just because everything within the universe (or universes) requires a cause doesn’t mean that the universe itself requires a cause? Well, if that is correct I will definitely give it some thought but I know I am going to end up with a headache. LOL…

You got it. Just because everything in a system has a property it doesn’t follow that the system itself has that property.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Good. Okay, now we have to examine the argument in a little bit more detail. Let’s look at statement one, that everything has a cause. What is our justification for this? This statement is justified by inductive reasoning. All observed things have causes, and so by induction, we extrapolate this to be the general statement that all things have a cause.

The problem is that this extrapolation is done based entirely on the things which are contained inside the universe itself, and so it is unclear how these things can be extrapolated onto things which are not contained within the universe, such as the universe itself. Let me show you why.

When you try to extrapolate this principle to the universe itself, you run into a problem, as you are deriving a principle from the pieces of something (i.e. everything in the universe) and are then extrapolating it to the system as a whole (that is to say, the universe itself). This is the fallacy of composition. Allow me to illustrate the fallacy of composition.

1. System A is made out of pieces
2. All of the pieces of system A posses property B
3. Therefore System A possesses property B

This is what the fallacy of composition looks like, and your argument is an example of it. Allow me to put your argument into this form to demonstrate:

1. The Universe is made out of finite things
2. All finite things are caused
3. Therefore the Universe is caused

It is the fallacy of composition, just like in the previous example. It is fallacious deduce that a system possesses a property simply because every piece of it does.

This is just a general criticism of the form of your argument. We could examine other issues involved as well if you like.

If I am not mistaken, the fallacy of composition is only a fallacy when only some of the components have the property and not when all the components have the property. In fact, though I know it is not the most prestigious source of information (despite everyone relying on it), Wikipedia says the following:

Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will, too. In such instances, the fallacy of composition does not apply. For example, if all parts of a chair are green, then it is usually acceptable to infer that the chair is green.

Simply put, your denial above is false because you are misapplying a fallacy.

 

[Bakmoon]

If I am not mistaken, the fallacy of composition is only a fallacy when only some of the components have the property and not when all the components have the property. In fact, though I know it is not the most prestigious source of information (despite everyone relying on it), Wikipedia says the following:

Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will, too. In such instances, the fallacy of composition does not apply. For example, if all parts of a chair are green, then it is usually acceptable to infer that the chair is green.

Look closely at the quote you gave from wikipedia. It only says that some properties are of the nature that if every part of something has them then the whole does too. It doesn’t say that about all properties.

Also, the fallacy of composition remains even with every piece possessing the property. Just look at the first line of the wikipedia page you quoted from where it says:

The** fallacy of composition arises** when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).

As can be seen, it is fallacious to hold that a system has a property simply because every piece has that property, even if it really is every piece of it that has that property.

 

[Bakmoon]

Hello Bakmoon!

You seem a very smart person and it will be a pleasure talking to you. Here is my argument:

An infinite regress is impossible because effects only take place once they are caused. A domino falls once it is pushed, not before it is pushed.

To say there is an infinite regress of ‘universes’ is like putting an infinite number of dominoes at the head of the line: the dominoes will never fall, because you will never push the first one, because there will never be a first one from which a chain of causation may proceed.

However, we find ourselves in the midst of a chain of causation. I came from mom who came from grandma who came from cave woman, etc. We see the fallen dominoes. Therefore there must be a beginning, because of the fact of causation. But we know this cannot happen in an infinite regress, as discussed above. That means that there must be an anomaly, something which started on its own - an uncaused cause. The only way to deny this is to deny that causation is real.

Now, from this argument, nothing necessitates this eternal “first cause” to be the Christian God. But it does mean that we cannot hold to an infinite regress.

As for your interesting idea (IIRC) that time expands in opposite directions, then that means there must be a center from which the two directions expand. Even if you think of a sphere which expands in all directions, it must come from a center.

Thoughts?

Thank you for your compliment. I am flattered. I am sure you are very smart as well and we will also enjoy a nice conversation.

The only flaw that I could find is where you say:

To say there is an infinite regress of ‘universes’ is like putting an infinite number of dominoes at the head of the line: the dominoes will never fall, because you will never push the first one, because there will never be a first one from which a chain of causation may proceed.

This assumes the existence of a first domino. If the line of dominoes is infinite in both directions, then there is no first domino.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Look closely at the quote you gave from wikipedia. It only says that some properties are of the nature that if every part of something has them then the whole does too. It doesn’t say that about all properties

I seem to be missing your point here. I never said that “all properties” are exceptions, only that there are indeed exceptions. All the components of the universe have the creator–>created causal relation and as far as I know, there are no exceptions to the cause–>effect/creator–>created relationship. It stands to the exception, if all the parts of the chair are green, then too is the chair.

Also, the fallacy of composition remains even with every piece possessing the property. Just look at the first line of the wikipedia page you quoted from where it says:

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole(or even of every proper part).

That is only true if the property in question is not expansive. If the property is expansive, then the fallacy does not exist because it is a correct inference–take colors for example: bricks are red, my grill is made of bricks, thus my grill is red.

Have you any examples of causality not working at the universe-scale? If not, then your rejection of causality being an expansive property is moot. If so, please share them.

 

[Bakmoon]

I seem to be missing your point here. I never said that “all properties” are exceptions, only that there are indeed exceptions. All the components of the universe have the creator–>created causal relation and as far as I know, there are no exceptions to the cause–>effect/creator–>created relationship. It stands to the exception, if all the parts of the chair are green, then too is the chair.

That is only true if the property in question is not expansive. If the property is expansive, then the fallacy does not exist because it is a correct inference–take colors for example: bricks are red, my grill is made of bricks, thus my grill is red.

Have you any examples of causality not working at the universe-scale? If not, then your rejection of causality being an expansive property is moot. If so, please share them.

Is there any evidence that causality is an expansive property?

 

[meltzerboy]

Nobody denies that everything created was done by a creator e.g., cars, houses, bridges skyscrapers etc. Does creation itself follow the same paradigm or is creation the only exemption?

Perhaps. However, everything created was created by a creator who was himself or herself created. That’s one difference.

 

[joe370]

Perhaps. However, everything created was created by a creator who was himself or herself created. That’s one difference.

Pretty sure that God is not a he or a she… Unless of course you are referring to God via the Incarnate Word, Who was a He…

 

[meltzerboy]

Pretty sure that God is not a he or a she… Unless of course you are referring to God via the Incarnate Word, Who was a He…

I realize that. I was just pointing out that it doesn’t follow exactly the same paradigm because the Creator was not created, whereas the creator was. This difference would likely affect the nature and act of the creation itself.

 

[joe370]

Is there any evidence that causality is an expansive property?

Is there any evidence, at all, other than inductive reasoning, (which of course is not empirically based) to support the idea that causality, regarding the universe, is unnecessary? If there is, then I am all ears; if not then it comes down to faith regarding such a belief - right? Of course, Christians live by faith, therefore the burden of proof is not on the Christian. We don’t claim to know, one way or the other…

A certain atheist on this thread claims that he does not need faith to be an atheist, which means that he must have some sort of empirical proof that he is unwilling to share. I feel that I can say, with certainty, that no one can ever know at this particular juncture.

Is that a fair assessment?