The priniciple of Causality, Logic & Scientific Observation.

[Nebogipfel]

Physics is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The second way…

You ought to read a book that explains the subject.

I will certainly put it on my reading list. Any chance of a quick summary of the salient points for us knuckledraggers who are not well versed in Aquinas and Aristotle?

 

[Nebogipfel]

MindOverMatter:

The universe is expanding. The Big Bang posits the understanding that if we rewind history, the Universe, in respect of physical necessity, will shrink to an infinitesimal point, beyond which, there is no time, space or matter. Before the infinite point is reached, it must be the case that we eventually come to an event that has no physical explanation; as in, no preceding physical cause. Thus we have something in motion that has no physical reason to be in motion. In fact; we have potentiality with out a cause.

In line with the two principles of the original post, this is not possible. Therefore it follows necessarily that any explanation of the Universes existence would require a transcendence of time, space and matter altogether.

Unless, of course, the two premisses of the OP are not correct, and when it comes to the birth of universes, our intuition is incorrect, and you can have event without cause.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Unless, of course, the two premisses of the OP are not correct, and when it comes to the birth of universes, our intuition is incorrect, and you can have event without cause.

It seems that you at least accept that if the premises are correct, God logically follows. So there may still be hope for you yet; that one day you will start thinking.

If you have no confidence in logic, and wish to believe in irrational things, such as things popping in to existence from nothing, or things moving for no rational reason without a cause, then that is entirely up to you; but then don’t call me **irrational **for believing in God (I’m not accusing you personally; I’m just stating my dislike for nonsense). I have accepted that the premises of Aquinas are inescapably logical. Perhaps one day you will to.

For now, lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Nebogipfel]

It seems that you at least accept that if the premises are correct, God logically follows. So there may still be hope for you yet; that one day you will start thinking.

No, I accept that if the premises are correct, it follows that the Universe had a cause. I still see no reason to label that cause as “God”.

But it sounds like we’re done here, doesn’t it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Because this is just playing with word meanings. Even if I accept that something caused the universe, I really don’t see any reason to stick the label “God” on it. Except in the circular sense of saying, God is that which, by definition, created the universe.

ok, so the argument now is that it is unreasonable to assume that the cause of the universe is G-d.

Why? From where I stand, it’s just refusing to make the unwarranted leap from “something caused the Universe” to "that something is God, and specifically, the Christian God.

alright first lets tackle the reasons to claim the creative act is from G-d, then we can tackle the logical proof it is the Christain
G-d.

what could possibly create the physical universe?

1. a random effect.
2. an intelligent actor.

how can something random create this physical universe? if it were truly a random event, then any possible universe could be created, anything from a universe consisting of nothing but pure space, to one packed with matter to the point of being one solid block of near infinite density, from absolutley no physical laws to the most extreme where matter could not exist. one where time doesnt exist, to one where all time ran instantaneously.

the possibilities are nearly infinite, and all equally probable, from a random event.

to say that this universe arose from a random effect, but not G-d, is to have a faith much deeper than any religion could ever offer.

the odds that this universe would be created, with these specific conditions by some random effect are so astronomical as to be laughable. nearly impossible.

meanwhile, the exacting contingencies that would have to be met to produce these exact physical laws, and the conditions under which we would eventually be here could have been chosen by an independant actor.

so could the universe be a random creation?

yes, if you choose to believe that one could win the lottery every day for several lifetimes, its possible, just so mathematically improbable as to be absurd. that would take an awful lot of faith.

could it be a creation of an intelligent actor?

yes, indeed of the 2 options it would seem to be much more believable. one could choose these specific conditions that eventually led to our current conversation. in fact its about the only realistic way to get here,

so what is more likely?

our existence from the random effect that created this universe as opposed to any of the other, nearly infinite possibilities.

or

this universe created specifically with these conditions to produce us.

rationally the most likely scenario, is intelligent creation of the universe.

Yes, I am often told that my failure to believe in God is a result of me not wanting to take responsibility for my actions, or not wanting to face up to being “sinful”, or even more absurdly that I do believe in God, but just won’t admit it.

If people wish to think that about me, then there’s not a lot I can do to dissuade them, except to say that it ain’t so.

our contention is that being an atheist is a matter of desire, regardless of motivation.

rational scepticism, doesnt support it.

a rationalist, being true to that rationalism, must be a theist.

 

[1holycatholic]

I will certainly put it on my reading list. Any chance of a quick summary of the salient points for us knuckledraggers who are not well versed in Aquinas and Aristotle?

Not without doing the arguments a grave disservice. The explanatory footnotes for the arguments easily take up ninety percent of each page in the text.

 

[MindOverMatter]

No, I accept that if the premises are correct, it follows that the Universe had a cause. I still see no reason to label that cause as “God”.
But it sounds like we’re done here, doesn’t it?

No you’re finished if you have nothing more to learn from this thread. Unless you’re some kind of troll. Heres the short an simple answer to you’re post.

If you had read and understood the premises of the original post you would have understood that the first cause cannot be in time since it is the cause of time, and neither can it be a physical cause since physical causes operate in time. Therefore the universe has a none material cause. An unmoved mover. The only other possibility is that the first cause is a personal eternal cause. It follows necessarily, since all other natural explanations are flawed so far as the premise is concerned. Sounds a bit like God to me, i don’t know about you? :banghead:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Unless, of course, the two premisses of the OP are not correct, and when it comes to the birth of universes, our intuition is incorrect, and you can have event without cause.

its no intuition, it is an observable reality. please tell me where you see anything that is provably uncaused?

 

[Nebogipfel]

Not without doing the arguments a grave disservice. The explanatory footnotes for the arguments easily take up ninety percent of each page in the text.

Fair enough - it’s a technical subject, and, indeed, I suppose requires study. I shall certainly try and give it some time.

 

[Nebogipfel]

No you’re finished if you have nothing more to learn from this thread. Unless you’re some kind of troll. Heres the short an simple answer to you’re post.

If you had read and understood the premises of the original post you would have understood that the first cause cannot be in time since it is the cause of time, and neither can it be a physical cause since physical causes operate in time. Therefore the universe has a none material cause. An unmoved mover. The only other possibility is that the first cause is a personal eternal cause. It follows necessarily, since all other natural explanations are flawed so far as the premise is concerned. Sounds a bit like God to me, i don’t know about you? :banghead:

(My emphasis)

Well, that term personal just popped into existence from nowhere, didn’t it? And how does a concept like eternal have any meaning outside of time? If we’re talking agencies or entities that are completely outside anything we can comprehend, then what the heck does it mean to be a person under those circumstances? Since you argued quite eloquently that, effectively, all bets are off prior to the beginning of time and space, how does anything necessarily follow from that?

Because then you are, of course, assuming that while physical laws did not apply before the beginning of the universe, the laws of logic did. Is that really self evident? Gee, maybe I’m the one who should be banging my head against a wall.

And, yes I’m finished here, if I’m a troll and a non-thinker simply for taking up the challenge you issued in your opening post.

Yes, I can certainly agree to differ - but you seem to be greatly troubled by the fact that I don’t accept your arguments.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

.

i noticed that you havent replied to the arguments in post #34.

i was wondering if you would, please.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

(My emphasis)

Well, that term personal just popped into existence from nowhere, didn’t it? And how does a concept like eternal have any meaning outside of time?

MoM is speaking metaphysically, the definition of eternal in metaphysics means to exist apart from all relationships to time.

If we’re talking agencies or entities that are completely outside anything we can comprehend, then what the heck does it mean to be a person under those circumstances?

personal as in being a discrete being, not as in ‘humanity’

Since you argued quite eloquently that, effectively, all bets are off prior to the beginning of time and space, how does anything necessarily follow from that?

we can use that determine that G-d, as first cause, cannot be physical, subject to causality, or temporal and physical laws.

thats just some ways that we can use that information.

Because then you are, of course, assuming that while physical laws did not apply before the beginning of the universe, the laws of logic did. Is that really self evident? Gee, maybe I’m the one who should be banging my head against a wall.

physical laws are defined by the universal constants, and repeatedly testable evidence, i.e. gravity decreases as a square of distance.

no matter what those laws are,logic, such as mathematics can be used to define them.

logic is, therefore, independent of the physical.

Yes, I can certainly agree to differ - but you seem to be greatly troubled by the fact that I don’t accept your arguments.

if you dont offer rational arguments to support your position than how can we do anything other than assume that your atheism is based on desire rather than rationalism?

 

[MindOverMatter]

(My emphasis)

Well, that term personal just popped into existence from nowhere, didn’t it?

No it didn’t. I stated a shorter version of the following; that in the absences of a purely random cause, a purely intentional cause is the only possibility left. We know from ourselves about intentional causes. But I am not arguing that something exactly like a person is behind the universe. Thats not possible. I’m arguing that something “like” a person, but transcendent in nature, is the underlining principle behind the existence of all physical laws. An eternal will, or mind of sorts, has eternally willed all physical qualities, natures and logical possibilities into being in so far as it reflects the glory of its personal and perfect nature. You seem to think that because you cannot grasp the nature of a personal unmoved-mover, that therefore a natural-cause that came out of nothing or has no cause at all, is more reasonable; and I have been arguing that you are flying in the face of logic and science by holding that position. The fact is, your inability to comprehend and grasp the reality of such a nature, is besides the point. That is a different philosophical question. We are talking about “necessity”. A personal God with an eternal and perfect will, is the only way to explain the universe in the absence of a sufficient physical cause.

Why is that so difficult to understand?. I am arguing nothing more then what necessity demands. I’m arguing that the first cause has a personal nature.

And how does a concept like eternal have any meaning outside of time?

Well, it should be obvious by now, that what we mean by eternal, is not and infinite duration of time, but rather a timeless perfection.

If we’re talking agencies or entities that are completely outside anything we can comprehend, then what the heck does it mean to be a person under those circumstances?

Like i said above; your inability to grasp the reality of Gods personal nature, does not change the logical necessity of a personal cause so far as the original premise is concerned. You assume that you must be able to comprehend all aspects of a cause in order for it to be truly a cause. Which is a fallacy. One only need show, so long as it is a logical possibility, that such a cause must exist out of necessity.

Since you argued quite eloquently

Thankyou

that, effectively, all bets are off prior to the beginning of time and space, how does anything necessarily follow from that?

All bets are of for a physical cause, no doubt; but there is nothing to say that a thing cannot transcend the nature of time, space and matter. Something can exist timelessly, but in order for it to be a cause of something, it must have specific attributes. It must have the attributes of the Christian God. It would have to have an eternal will

Because then you are, of course, assuming that while physical laws did not apply before the beginning of the universe, the laws of logic did.

I am not assuming anything. I don’t think you really read my posts. You probably thought from the outset that i couldn’t possibly be right. But unlike you, i have a deep respect for logic and i follow it to its logical consequences.

Gee, maybe I’m the one who should be banging my head against a wall.

I think you should open your mind. And I’m not taking about believing in irrational things, such as reality popping out of nothing without a cause. I’m talking about taking logic to its most rational conclusion; which is God.

And, yes I’m finished here, if I’m a troll and a non-thinker simply for taking up the challenge you issued in your opening post.

You have offered no challenges accept to offer the absurd notion that things can begin to exist with out causes.

Yes, I can certainly agree to differ - but you seem to be greatly troubled by the fact that I don’t accept your arguments.

It doesn’t bother me that people do not accept my arguments. What troubles me is when people offer absurd proofs in order to avoid the existence of God. If you are willing to destroy logic in order to be free of its inescapable conclusions, one must wonder why you come to these forums. “Internet trolling” is one of the possible reasons you come here. Although I apologize to you if that is not in fact the case.

 

[MindOverMatter]

if you don’t offer rational arguments to support your position than how can we do anything other than assume that your atheism is based on desire rather than rationalism?

Thanks for your logical (name removed by moderator)ut WarpSpeedPetey; its been great!

 

[Leela]

Hi Nebogipfel,

Isn’t it ironic that when you suggest that the laws of causality and time may not have applied at the beginning of time, you get called closed minded?

Is sad that when certain people are unable to convince others of their positions, instead of trying to be more clear or pursuasive and instead of reevaluating their own position, they resort to accusing others of destroying logic to avoid the “inescapable” conclusion which is actually just the same premise that their whole argument is based upon: there is a God, therefore there must be a God. How is that for closed minded?

Best,
Leela

 

[Nebogipfel]

if you dont offer rational arguments to support your position than how can we do anything other than assume that your atheism is based on desire rather than rationalism?

I have tried to explain why I am not persuaded this argument that because physical laws cannot apply before the beginning means that “something like a person with a will and a concept of glory” (terms which MindOverMatter has used since) must necessarily be the first cause of the universe. I just do not see how it necessarily follows that you can infer the existence of an entity with a will from that. From where I’m standing, it’s a huge non-sequitor. From where I’m standing, it is you and MindOverMatter who are failing to support their position with rational arguments, and whose theism is based on desire rather than rationalism.

Since it appears that neither of us is going to convince the other, and both are convinced that the other party is being irrational, I don’t see that we can get much further down this road. Do you?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Since it appears that neither of us is going to convince the other, and both are convinced that the other party is being irrational, I don’t see that we can get much further down this road. Do you?

You are correct. I am never going to accept that things can pop into being out of nothing without a cause, or move around with out a cause. I believe this is a reasonable position to hold; and it is upon this foundation that i, and many other intelligent people, gain the right, the privilage, and the ability, to logically demonstrate the existence of a transcendent personal reality with an eternal will to create; simply because it follows necessarily from the premise of causality. Whether we desire the existence of such a being or hold to the existence of God on other grounds, is besides the point. This does not change the fact the existence of such a being follows necessarily from the logical principles spoken about in the first post. I think you should read them again.

You have offered no good reasons why this argument is void,
accept to say you cannot understand nor grasp the reality of an intelligent cause behind physical reality. Thats a shame. But merely asserting that something is irrational because it doesn’t hold to your personal tastes is only going to irritate people. Its not going to inspire or move them in to agreeing with you; unless of coarse, if they don’t understand the logical difference between a correct inference and a false one. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut anyway.

Peace!!!

 

[Nebogipfel]

Hi Nebogipfel,

Isn’t it ironic that when you suggest that the laws of causality and time may not have applied at the beginning of time, you get called closed minded?

Is sad that when certain people are unable to convince others of their positions, instead of trying to be more clear or pursuasive and instead of reevaluating their own position, they resort to accusing others of destroying logic to avoid the “inescapable” conclusion which is actually just the same premise that their whole argument is based upon: there is a God, therefore there must be a God. How is that for closed minded?

Best,
Leela

Couldn’t have put it better myself, Leela…

 

[Nebogipfel]

You are correct. I am never going to accept that things can pop into being out of nothing without a cause, or move around with out a cause.

There’s no possibility of you accepting this? Not even if a logical argument could be made for it, or robust scientific proof was provided? Gee, at least I’m willing to change my mind given a convincing reason to do so. So I’m the one that’s closed-minded? It’s a good thing that only atheists are arrogant and condescending, otherwise I might be tempted to throw some robust language around.

I believe this is a reasonable position to hold; and it is upon this foundation that i, and many other intelligent people, gain the right, the privilage, and the ability, to logically demonstrate the existence of a transcendent personal reality with an eternal will to create; simply because it follows necessarily from the premise of causality.

You are convinced by the argument you have put forward. Fair enough. But from where I’m standing, you have not given any reason I can see why this Unmoved Mover must - must - have attributes like will and desire and glory.

Whether we desire the existence of such a being or hold to the existence of God on other grounds, is besides the point. This does not change the fact the existence of such a being follows necessarily from the logical principles spoken about in the first post. I think you should read them again.

Perhaps I have read them all too thoroughly. And why should this argument lead specifically to the Christian God, as you say it must? As far as I can see, any religion that believes in a universe-creating entity can use exactly your argument to prove that their conception of God must necessarily be the correct one.

You have offered no good reasons why this argument is void,

You have offered no good reasons why, even if the Prime Mover does or did exist, it should have quasi-human qualities like will and desire to enjoy reflected glory.

except to say you cannot understand nor grasp the reality of an intelligent cause behind physical reality.

No . That’s not what I said. Don’t misrepresent me, please. I am saying that I cannot - with my brain bound as it is by the laws of physics - grasp what things must have been like under conditions where there was no time and no space. Acknowledging this limitation, I am certainly not going to do anything rash like attribute human qualitites like will and desire to an entity which, you have demonstrated, must necessarily be completely unlike anything that human beings have encountered before.

The Christian concept of “God” is eminently graspable.

Thats a shame. But merely asserting that something is irrational because it doesn’t hold to your personal tastes is only going to irritate people.

Indeed. Hence my feeling of irritation right now.

Its not going to inspire or move them in to agreeing with you; unless of coarse, if they don’t understand the logical difference between a correct inference and a false one.

Well if I look at what people seem to be calling the “New Atheist” movement, metaphysical discussions about the origin of the universe is neither first nor the only barrier to belief in a divine entity.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut anyway.

You’re welcome.

Peace!!!

I’ll drink to that

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hi Nebogipfel,
you get called closed minded?

Being close minded, and being so prejudiced as to fail to see the obvious, is a trait that i see in both of your debating style. Saying that a logically impossible or contradictory thing can be true, is not being open minded; its not caring to have a mind at all.

Hi Nebogipfel,
Isn’t it ironic that when you suggest that the laws of causality and time may not have applied at the beginning of time,

And as for the application of physical law, the validity of your claim really depends what you mean by the laws of causality. It is certainly and necessarily true that “inert secondary-causes and effects” began with time. All that means to say is that one cannot logically posit a physical cause as the cause of time. Thus you are left with an effect with no cause, which is an illogical position to hold. This has no bearing on the existence of a timeless transcendent eternal will to create. Aquinas said that if you want to explain causality you must necessarily come to a timeless cause that has the explanation of its own existence in itself. The universe is a chain of causes and effects, and if you want to find an explanation of the universe with out falling in to logical contradictions, then you must transcend the reality of physics altogether for an explanation. What ever that thing is, it must have a personal will to create if it is to have a relevant and logical connection or relationship with our universe… On top of which a mind is the explanation for the laws of physics came from; other wise you must say that they just exist for no reason.

If you are saying that something came out of nothing, then you are trying to convince people of the logically impossible; which will only convince those who do not know how to think critically. So long as a personal transcendent creator of laws is even a logical possibility, such a being must necessarily be the cause of the universe. The problem with you and the other atheistic debaters on this forum is that you assume that there is some kind of intellectual glory in apposing God as an explanation. But you have know proof or argument to support this claim. This is not critical thinking.

It is you Job to prove Aquinas wrong. Or, for the sake of your intellectual integrity, you must admit that a transcendent cause is the only reasonable cause.

Is sad that when certain people are unable to convince others of their positions, instead of trying to be more clear or persuasive and instead of reevaluating their own position, they resort to accusing others of destroying logic.

To say that something can come out of nothing, is to destroy logic.

there is a God, therefore there must be a God. How is that for closed minded?

Nobody ever made that argument. You are a dishonest person.