For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[StrawberryJam]

LOL!

1. The argument in no way contradicts the fact that motion is linked to time.
2. The argument holds whether the universe is finite or eternal. That was clearly explained. You are just ignoring what is being said.
3. The argument in no way applies the laws of this universe to what is outside of it.

That’s three strikes. You are totally out! I am ringing the bell!

K, God works within the natural laws of the universe?

How so?

Edit : Guess I read it wrong, you are actually saying that special pleadings for God get him off the hook for NOT following the laws of this universe. Sorry for the mistake!

 

[AlbertBall]

LOL!

1. The argument in no way contradicts the fact that motion is linked to time.
2. The argument holds whether the universe is finite or eternal. That was clearly explained. You are just ignoring what is being said.
3. The argument in no way applies the laws of this universe to what is outside of it.

That’s three strikes. You are totally out! I am ringing the bell!

So god, the unmoved mover is part of THIS universe? Begs the question why it is needed for its seems motion must have been in place BEFORE the ‘unmoved mover’?.

Hold on, I have a quote from someone that will shed light on the situation “Your personal belief that absolutely everything is moved by another does not stand serious analysis. And it is certainly not a position you can prove.” - itinerant1

 

[itinerant1]

So god, the unmoved mover is part of THIS universe? Begs the question why it is needed for its seems motion must have been in place BEFORE the ‘unmoved mover’?.

Hold on, I have a quote from someone that will shed light on the situation “Your personal belief that absolutely everything is moved by another does not stand serious analysis. And it is certainly not a position you can prove.” - itinerant1

Before you can criticize the argument, you must first understand it correctly. And that has not happened yet. The unmoved mover “transcends” the universe.

There is no “before” and “after” in the argument. The unmoved mover is not the first in a long series or chain of things moved stretching back in time…

For some people this can be hard to grasp because they rely on what the mind imagines. Imagination or images only get in the way. One must correctly “conceive” the argument’s steps without adverting to mental images.

You give the impression of being like a Flatlander confused by an argument for a third dimension.

 

[itinerant1]

K, God works within the natural laws of the universe?

How so?

Edit : Guess I read it wrong, you are actually saying that special pleadings for God get him off the hook for NOT following the laws of this universe. Sorry for the mistake!

Sorry, but that is not the argument.

 

[itinerant1]

The second argument:

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.

Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

 

[Bob4BVM]

The second argument:

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.

Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Very good.
Sad that some are stuck with only that which they can understand in their own heads, as if that were the limit off all possible understanding.
Who was it that said that … if you think you understand God, you can be quite sure that it is NOT God… ?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Very good.
Sad that some are stuck with only that which they can understand in their own heads, as if that were the limit off all possible understanding.
Who was it that said that … if you think you understand God, you can be quite sure that it is NOT God… ?

I don’t claim to understand God at all. In fact, I can’t and have tried to.
The Catholic Church does claim to, and holds a lot of dogma one must believe (I think it is 17 things?) that is understanding a lot about God if you ask me.

 

[larkin31]

Before you can criticize the argument, you must first understand it correctly. And that has not happened yet. The unmoved mover “transcends” the universe.

Is this a premise? Or a conclusion? My sense is that this is a premise, and you are asking others to “understand” it, but you really mean that we should “accept” it and not challenge it. I “understand” what you are claiming. I just reject the premises as unproven. You also claim that it is “impossible” for anything to “cause” itself. I see no reason why this must be true. What, exactly, do you mean by “cause”? I see no reason why the energy of the universe could not always have been in existence. Or are you claiming that “always” can not exist for energy? And on what grounds do you claim this?

Honestly, I think these syllogistic attempts at “proving” a “prime mover” are nothing but interesting flawed rhetorical exercises.

 

[itinerant1]

Is this a premise? Or a conclusion? My sense is that this is a premise, and you are asking others to “understand” it, but you really mean that we should “accept” it and not challenge it. I “understand” what you are claiming. I just reject the premises as unproven.

One can clearly see from the argument what are its premises. That the unmoved mover or uncaused caused “transcends” the unviverse is a neccesary implication of the conclusion.

You also claim that it is “impossible” for anything to “cause” itself. I see no reason why this must be true. What, exactly, do you mean by “cause”? I see no reason why the energy of the universe could not always have been in existence. Or are you claiming that “always” can not exist for energy? And on what grounds do you claim this?

Since one cannot provide an example of anything in the universe, matter or energey, that is a sufficient cause of itself, on what grounds would anyone surmise that the totality of these things, which are contingent and do not contain within themselves a sufficient reason for their existence, is sufficient unto itself?

Honestly, I think these syllogistic attempts at “proving” a “prime mover” are nothing but interesting flawed rhetorical exercises.

You may want to believe such a thing about the arguments, but what one “believes” or “assumes” about the arguments in no way constitutes a counter-argument or refutation.

 

[Bob4BVM]

I don’t claim to understand God at all. In fact, I can’t and have tried to.
The Catholic Church does claim to, and holds a lot of dogma one must believe (I think it is 17 things?) that is understanding a lot about God if you ask me.

NO, that is NOT TRUE. The Catholic Church does NOT claim to understand God !!!

She teaches many things that she DOES know to be the truth ABOUT God, but has never claimed to understand the great Mysteries of God in many things like the Trinity, the Holy Eucharist, the Annunciation, the Passion of Christ, and so on.

As a matter of fact the Catholic Church actually LABELS these as Mysteries because the she acknowledges them to be beyond human understanding !

 

[larkin31]

One can clearly see from the argument what are its premises. That the unmoved mover or uncaused caused “transcends” the unviverse is a neccesary implication of the conclusion.

Could you please write this out as a syllogism for us all? Explain how this is “a necessary implication of the conclusion.” To me, that sounds like a lot of fancy talk for, “I’d rather sound fancy than be specific and concrete and controvertible.”

Since one cannot provide an example of anything in the universe, matter or energey, that is a sufficient cause of itself, on what grounds would anyone surmise that the totality of these things, which are contingent and do not contain within themselves a sufficient reason for their existence, is sufficient unto itself?

See my comment above. I simply claim that since energy that is present in the universe has neither cause nor terminus, that it has therefore always existed. Energy has no cause. It is not that it is a cause of itself (semantics). It simply exists without cause and always has.

 

[itinerant1]

Could you please write this out as a syllogism for us all? Explain how this is “a necessary implication of the conclusion.” To me, that sounds like a lot of fancy talk for, “I’d rather sound fancy than be specific and concrete and controvertible.”

If the first cause is part of the universe, then it could not be an uncaused cause, since all physical things are composite and their existence contingent; and it would itself then require an explanation for its existence. Hence, an infinite regress is thereby implied, which is an impossibility since there would be no first cause and no explanation for the chain of movers or causes in nature.

See my comment above. I simply claim that since energy that is present in the universe has neither cause nor terminus, that it has therefore always existed. Energy has no cause. It is not that it is a cause of itself (semantics). It simply exists without cause and always has.

Your assertions denies all human experience with nature – everything in nature has a cause or multiple causes.

To say that energy “just is” and requires no causal explanation is tantamount to proffering a non-answer, and it explains nothing whatever.

 

[larkin31]

If the first cause is part of the universe, then it could not be an uncaused cause, since all physical things are composite and their existence contingent; and it would itself then require an explanation for its existence. Hence, an infinite regress is thereby implied, which is an impossibility since there would be no first cause and no explanation for the chain of movers or causes in nature.

This is not a syllogism. Some of these sentences have premises even within them. Do you know how to write a syllogism? You are making claims here in the guise of syllogistic thinking, but you still have not made your premise statements clear.

Your assertions denies all human experience with nature – everything in nature has a cause or multiple causes.

Everything BUT energy. I am denying nothing at all about nature. If energy has a cause, simply name it! I am not trying “to explain” anything here except to challenge your claim that ALL of our known world has a cause when we already know that energy can neither be created or destroyed. You are the one trying to posit a first cause. YOU do the explaining. I am simply focusing on the one premise claim that ALL of the known universe MUST have a cause. I do not see how that is true at all. It is certainly not true simply because you claim it.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Interesting that the first cause doesn’t have a first cause. All the logic and reasoning which is used to argue the case for a first cause, gets suspended and is not applied here.

 

[AlbertBall]

Before you can criticize the argument, you must first understand it correctly. And that has not happened yet. The unmoved mover “transcends” the universe.

Then you cannot use the laws of this universe to arrive at it!!! How many times must this be pointed out to you???

 

[itinerant1]

This is not a syllogism. Some of these sentences have premises even within them. Do you know how to write a syllogism? You are making claims here in the guise of syllogistic thinking, but you still have not made your premise statements clear.

My access to the internet is currently sporadic, so I cannot respond immediately to every post for the time being. You are correct, I did not post a syllogism. I am not sure that the original argument can be stated any more clearly or concisely than it has been. So, any problems should be dealt with by addressing that which you have questions about in regard to meaning, and so on.

Accordingly, what is it about the premises that you find unclear? Perhaps we can address that issue.

Everything BUT energy. I am denying nothing at all about nature. If energy has a cause, simply name it! I am not trying “to explain” anything here except to challenge your claim that ALL of our known world has a cause when we already know that energy can neither be created or destroyed. You are the one trying to posit a first cause. YOU do the explaining. I am simply focusing on the one premise claim that ALL of the known universe MUST have a cause. I do not see how that is true at all. It is certainly not true simply because you claim it.

You are needlessly entangling yourself about energy. To assert that energy can neither be created or destroyed does not account for the existence of energy in the first place. Matter and energy may be just different manifestations of one and the same reality. The critical point is that every event has a cause, or multiple causes. Nothing is an efficient cause of itself, at least in the same respect as that in which it is moved.

What phenomenon in the unviverse will you submit that is not itself caused by something else?

 

[itinerant1]

Then you cannot use the laws of this universe to arrive at it!!! How many times must this be pointed out to you???

I can’t?

Well, I think I just did, again, which means that I can. And I will keep doing it, perhaps innumerable times, until you present a compelling reason for why my argument is illegitimate. So far, I have not seen much at all, if anything, in the way of relevant counter-argument from you.

 

[larkin31]

What phenomenon in the unviverse will you submit that is not itself caused by something else?

energy, as I said

it has always existed, as far as we know

 

[AlbertBall]

I can’t?

Well, I think I just did, again, which means that I can. And I will keep doing it, perhaps innumerable times, until you present a compelling reason for why my argument is illegitimate. So far, I have not seen much at all, if anything, in the way of relevant counter-argument from you.

Because you are making assertions about that which is unknown. In other words you are just making it up. Just because we do not know something does not mean you are justified in making up unsupported assertions to fill the gaps. If you can’t see why this is clearly irrational, then there is not much we can do to help.

 

[itinerant1]

energy, as I said

it has always existed, as far as we know

I am not sure who the “we” is that you are referring to. In any case, if you take the position that energy has always existed, that is tantamount to claiming physical reality has always existed. There is nothing contrary to logic in your claim. However, my arguments still hold even under the assumption that energy has always existed.

As you recall, the arguments assume an eternally existing universe as a hypothetical possibility. (It has no bearing on the arguments whether one considers energy to have finite or eternal existence.)

The perspective of eternal (or even finite) existence in regard to energy is “horizontal” thinking. The arguments, to the contrary, as was previously pointed out, involve “vertical” thinking about motion and causality at the present moment. The arguments do not involve a series of causes or motion stretching back in time. Thus, to claim that energy has always existed, is not a relevant objection to the arguments.

It appears that you remain stuck at the earliest part of this discussion where all of this was explained.