J
joemccarron
Guest
I point out that this thread is really only discussing one philosophical proof of the existence of God. Which is fine but the topic title suggests otherwise. There are other arguments.
- Status
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Huh?
Effect inherently necessitates a cause.
An effect cannot exist without a cause.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Cause and effect can be concurrent. Take a cut made by a knife: the cause (knife) and effect (cut) are concurrent.
D
davidv
Guest
I happen to do cause and effect analysis for a living and I can tell you the the knife is not the cause of the cut.
The true cause is whatever action moves the knife in relation to the thing being cut. The start of this motion would always precede the completion of the “cut”.
J
jkiernan56
Guest
I was responding to your earlier statement that “cause does not need to precede effect.” It is an impossibility to have an effect without a cause.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
EXPOSED!!!
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
This reminds me…
**Potentiality To The Actuality Of An Effect.
**
A cause can transcend its effect. It is true, in one particular sense, that God precedes all effects. However; God transcends all effects, and thus exists simultaneous to any effect that is in time. Hence it is not necessary for God to precede his effect. A physical cause must precede its effect because it is in time; or rather, all potentialities for change must exist prior to any given actuality, and every potentiality must have a sufficient cause in order for it to be a logical possibility. Otherwise, it is impossible that a thing can become actual or real, since it has no potentiality to become.
Once one understands that a thing in time (meaning anything that begins to change or exist) exists because it had potential, and that any given potentiality is only made possible by something else that existed before hand, then one can expose the flaws of naturalism. This is why quantum physics cannot be used as a reasonable explanation for the beginning of all things. Naturalism has been refuted, and has been dead for hundreds of years. The world is in denial. Hence; the beginning of all things must be, by logical necessity, transcended, in order to explain the phenomenon, or potentiality that exists necessarily in relation to the first-event. You cannot get potentiality from nothing. Since all natural events (random, accidental, determined or all three) no-longer have any explanatory power, the only possible explanation left is an eternal expression of will and power. Existence has intentionally shared itself with other beings.There is no other possible or logical explanation left other then that.
The naturalist has no choice but to deny logic altogether. When are they gonna learn?
In other-words a cause can transcend its effect, providing that it exists eternally uncaused; outside of time.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i am so stealing that analogy.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
not to get into the whole ‘what cut without the knife?’ idea im just curious as to what exactly cause and effect analyst is?
i didn’t know there was such a thing.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
im curious, can anyone tell me why no one walking down the beach has found a watch that formed in the ocean?
if the probability pool of primordial oceans was so large as to create life, why couldn’t it make a decent pair of nikes?
one would think you could find a whole dollar store scattered about if it is merely a matter of probability.
im not protestant creationist myself, but my conversation with neb, has led me to that question.
if the probability pool of primordial oceans was so large as to create life, why couldn’t it make a decent pair of nikes?
one would think you could find a whole dollar store scattered about if it is merely a matter of probability.
im not protestant creationist myself, but my conversation with neb, has led me to that question.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
I have noticed that such an argument has become like a calling card for the protestant. Its almost as if they are characterized by that argument; as if its a part of their very being and nature to express it.
I personally don’t bother much with design; at least not the kind of design that is associated with William Paley. The reason being is that as soon as you allow for even the slightest chance of a natural cause; the doubter will feel compelled to accept nature as a raw fact. Such is the nature of some.
When it comes to arguments from design, i try to “Thomisticate” it. I look for a final cause. I am quite happy to accept that random and deterministic events are wholly responsible for shaping particles together in to various 3 dimensional patterns and geometric shapes. I am happy to accept survival of the fittest and natural selection as an explanation for variation. Let them have their scientific glory. But don’t be fooled into thinking that i say this in defeat as a Theist and a self proclaimed meta-physician. For I believe a more sophisticated inference to design argument can rise out of the ashes of William Paley, and at the same time be wholly consistence in relation to evolutionary events. Thus ending the war between Theism and Evolution.
Instead of attacking evolution, i try to point out that there are things that are not wholly caused by secondary physical events, such as the nature and function sight. What i mean by that is; there are certain qualities in nature that have to exist by default in order for anything to work at all. There are in existence very specific objective meanings rooted in the very fabric of physical nature that must exist before there can ever be such a thing as evolution; let alone chemistry. There are things in nature that cannot possibly be explained by mere physical cause and effect. It is too shallow an explanation to provide anything of substance. Such things can only be explained by a transcendent cause; or “programmer”. Play you cards right, and you have what i would call a “final inference” to “design” through “evolution”.
For instance. It was always true that given the actuality of 3 dimensional geometric patterns, in relation to a complex structure such as a “nervous system”, that human sight would be achieved. But this isn’t true just because of the immediate effects involved in the process of becoming. It was always true since the beginning of time, that the eye would “see”. Thus you have an effect or a quality without a physical cause. How does one best explain this if it is not an eternal designer? One certainly cannot say that nature done it! The eye is evidently for the purpose of seeing and the brain is evidently for the purpose of processing data. Nature, as Thomas would put it, is evidently working towards meaningful ends. This is evident to our experience. Evolution does not explain away design. At most It merely gives the illusion of an explanation.
As soon as you ask the question “why is chemistry as such that man is the end product”, naturalism loses its explanatory power; since nature has to have a quality of being or form before it can behave or become what it is.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
As soon as you ask the question “why is chemistry as such that man is the end product”, naturalism loses its explanatory power; since nature has to have a quality of being or form before it can behave or become what it is in order that it can be an explanation for anything.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
I’ve heard it in class and I have a book by W. Norris Clarke that makes a similar analogy: The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics.i am so stealing that analogy.
I suppose the point is that cause and effect are not necessarily temporally sequential. It is possible to have cause and effect concurrently.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
That’s a causal chain. The terminus of that chain of efficient causes is the knife which is the efficient cause of the cut.
W. Norris Clarke said:
He goes on to give the example of a chair being pushed across the room. While it takes him time to push the chair across the room, there is no passage of time between him pushing the chair and the chair being pushed.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i think in the same general terms, the first question is existence, though i dont care one way or the other about evolution per se, its too small of a problem in the face of existence.
i just wonder why the extrapolation assumed seems to be us but not a good pair of sneakers.
random acts dont seem to be a reasonable explanation for any particular out come. the only argument they seem to make, is “thats how it is, why is it remarkable?”
as i said, creationism isnt my thing, but now neb has me wondering at the stridency to his objections to it.
neb is so sure i am making a creationist argument i started to wonder about it.
N
Nebogipfel
Guest
Here’s the wiki definition:
Any entities which are composed of matter and/or energy, as well as the physical properties of those entities; and not merely items of thought or belief
Please show me something that is composed of neither matter nor energy (and is not a vacuum, which is just the absence of matter and energy), and which actually has existence.
Then you can roll around on the floor and laugh
N
Nebogipfel
Guest
It was a joke, petey, you know, a humourous, tongue-in-cheek remark. Hence the little smiley thing at the end of the paragraph
I give up.
Petey, you have restated your argument a dozen times, and with the best will in the world, I cannot see any interpretation other than:
- It is astronomically improbable that this universe or any other came into existance by means of blind, random processes.
- Therefore, it must have come into existence by means of a deliberate act from an “independent actor”, something with intent or purpose.
If it is in fact your argument, then I think it is flawed, for the reasons I’ve tried (perhaps not very well) to explain, and I have not heard anything which refutes that flaw.
I will agree to disagree.
N
Nebogipfel
Guest
The knife cuts butter because the molecules of the knife push the molecules of the butter out of the way. This requires force and accelleration, neither of which can happen instantaneously, both of which require time.i am so stealing that analogy.
So it is just not true to say that the cut occurs instantaneously, and why I do not accept that causality means anything without the passage of time.
- Status