L
liquidpele
Guest
That is an unacceptable answer, sorry. You essentially just said that it’s that way because you say so.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Perhaps I should elaborate. Physical causation, as such, is *not *a necessary truth. (David Hume pointed this out). For all we know, there could be a universe in which many things are not determined by their causes – but we have observed that this is not the case in *our *universe. But why is it not the case in our universe? Possible answers:
- We don’t know that causation always works in our universe. In which case, we have a question of why things always seem to us to follow from their causes.
- There is a determining characteristic of universes, that determines their contingent properties, like rules of causation.
- It just is that way.
Answer #3 can offer no hypothesis, because it implicitly claims that these things are unknowable.
I’m not intending to convince you with these arguments, however. They’re practice for me, and I imagine they’re not perfect. The idea of objective truth as a standard of belief is a modern idea, and it is very problematic. No one can perceive objective truth from an objective standpoint. Subjective experience is where God takes root, and too much objectivising will drive Him away.
C
Contarini
Guest
Exactly. I am explaining how traditional theists view the universe. You view the universe with radically different presuppositions. You start with the assumption that the only reality is that which is scientifically observable. This leads you, for instance, to treat the idea of a simple, infinite First Cause with contempt. Unless you are willing to understand the metaphysical presuppositions that lead traditional theists to believe in this, you will of course view our beliefs with contempt.
The purpose of my post was simply to point out that within our own framework we have a perfectly good reason for accepting an infinite spiritual Being as the First Cause. I also registered some doubts about the coherence of the notion that the universe (the totality of scientifically observable things) can be the cause of all the things within it. From my perspective, *that *is just “saying that it’s that way because you say so.”
In short, we are inevitably going to talk past each other until we take the trouble to examine each other’s basic presuppositions about reality. I’m willing to do this. Are you?
Edwin
T
tobias
Guest
I believe athiests are making a ‘claim’ that there is no God.
The athiest is asking for proof from sciences that are not equiped to detect, measure, quantify, qualify, or just generally observe supernatural, because they are measure of the natural. How do you measure the supernatural with the natural? It’s like asking someone to weigh a person with a yard stick, the method of measure is incompatible.
Let’s rephrase— If I said I had a monkey, and you asked to see it, and I said “I can’t prove I have one, but I know that it is there.” You may become irratated, or frustrated that you too do not know that I have a monkey.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Whoa… you just danced in a circle there.
Either causation is valid, which brings up the question of what caused God and why does it get to be the exception instead of just the universe or something else, or causation is only an effect within our present universe (or maybe not even there) in which case you can’t say the universe had be be created because of causation.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Indeed. I often relate it to this picture where you can either see as a young or old woman - whichever you see, it doesn’t mean a person that sees differently is wrong. I have no problem with differing opinion at all, as long as it’s logical and not harmful. For instance, I find myself in constant agreement with deists, not because I believe but because their points and thoughts I find valid.
That said, I think too many theists base far too much on some major assumptions and circular logic, so while I accept that they believe certain things, I can’t help but wonder why. Psychology and Neurology have become increasingly interesting to me because of this.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Guilty as charged, perhaps. Although I do have a defense, in the distinction between a “cause” and an “explanation”.
There is a difference between “causing something” and “being a condition of” something. Being female is a condition of ovulating, but being female does not cause someone to ovulate (the effect is not guaranteed). If the universe *could *not have been, which seems reasonable to assume, then there is a condition to the existence of the universe. This concept works independently of one-to-one causation.
Likewise, if there are phenomena that defy physical causation in our universe, this fact is might not have been – and this contingent truth begs for a ground, a condition that makes it possible. This argument suggests, though perhaps it does not guarantee, deism or theism.
According to most people, there *are * phenomena that defy physical causation in our universe: our freely chosen decisions. Perhaps not all decisions are instances of free will, but *some *are. If events that are physically caused have a condition that makes this possible (laws of physics), then it stand to reason that event that are not physically caused have a condition that makes this possible. What is that condition?
But most of this reasoning is a posteriori reasoning (like science) and its results are not guaranteed. I wonder: what are you looking for? If you need *proof *of God’s existence, then no Christian should bother with convincing you. Free will would be impossible if God were subject to our discursive knowledge. Even Jesus did not reveal Himself beyond doubt, with good reason.
If you believe that you have the ability (free will) to agree or disagree with the proposition “There is a God”, then you already believe in something you cannot see, something there are countless arguments against.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Disclaimer: I have about 7 beers in me 
You asked what I’m looking for… the answer is knowledge and understanding. In my case, it is not of God, but of people.
As you say below, you just moved it from something that is more scientific to something that is more speculation. That’s fine, just keep in mind my point regarding causation, as you’ll likely hear it again ad nausium (I know I do).
Haha… but I can’t see love and I believe in that! Actually… I am a bit of a physicalist… but I disregard the physical attributes of many things because I think they are too complicated to think of them that way. You wouldn’t think of a processor in terms of individual transistors just like you wouldn’t view conciousness in terms of individual neurons. In this respect, I think free will, love, conciousness, etc, are are physical by nature, but so mind-boggingly complicated that it’s impossible to really think of them as such as a whole.
You asked what I’m looking for… the answer is knowledge and understanding. In my case, it is not of God, but of people.
A
AndyF
Guest
Then how would you explain it’s recognition by God as such?. The collective has form, invokes God’s graces, sins in that form, asks for forgiveness in that form. God can be offended by it, and recognizes sins of nations and punishes temporally because of it.
Man, the constituent parts, forms decrees and constitutions to bind themselves in unity. So the result is they do so from the strength of thousands of consciences who have determined the morality of the law, and implement them regardless. Decrees do not always have God’s sanction, and some are downright evil.
Andy
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
The idea was brought up by an agnostic, which means that we should work from the agnostic’s valid assumptions about the world. The idea that “mankind” can be served, without any grounding for what the good of mankind would be, is an invalid assumption. Human beings want different things.
L
liquidpele
Guest
I agree with that. Of course, I think we have a grounding for what is good and bad without God though - in fact I think God is the personification of our internal moral structure we are all born with (with the exception of sociopaths and the like I guess). Considering the number of atheists in the world, I wonder why there are not more extremely immoral people if our morality comes only from religion.
M
mark_a
Guest
Good for you.
You know, Catholics believe that God puts goodness in everyone.
Maybe it’s the just Catholics that you personnally know that turn your stomach.
D
Detales
Guest
“*You know, Catholics believe that God puts goodness in everyone. *”
What does that have to do with anything Real???
What does that have to do with anything Real???
M
mark_a
Guest
I don’t understand the question.
- Status