Why does the first cause have to be God?

[Ismael]

Only to the same extent that ‘some people’ like to ’ introduce special knowledge only available to theologans because they think they can say any outlandish thing they want and it will defeat their oponent’ - how often have I seen christians say "oh, go read Summa Theologica’?

Also I can say the very same to you:

Only to the same extent that ‘some people’ like to ’ introduce special knowledge only available to scientists because they think they can say any outlandish.

Isn’t that whay Hawking and Krauss did in their books (often omitting that their theories have little if none reliable empirical evidence)?

You are just dabbling in dishonesty here.

Also in naivety: a wiki site is according to you something reliable, equal, let’s say going to college?
I doubt that.

The ‘Wiki sez’ game is an highly dishonest as well, since some things on the wiki page might be wrong or disputable and only people with specialized knowledge might recognized that.

On the other hand the Wikipedia article on Hidden Variables is accessibly written (in English, not Latin) and should be ‘available’ to any fluent english speaker.

There are free ENGLISH version of the Summa and (most of) all other works of Aquinas as well

Nope - that is explicitly covered by the ‘Hidden Variable’ link. if you don’t understand it, fine, but that does not justify sneering at those that do.

Since your comments above I wonder if YOU do

Nevertheless Cosmological arguments do not rely on ‘hidden variables’ (although maybe some forum commenters might be confused about that, but forums, like Wiki pages are not reliable sources of knowledge).

Tha fact that the possibility of an hidden variable in quantum theory is now accepted as impossible has never been a problem to theists.

FUNNY THING about physics, however is that future results might overthrow (partially at least) the starus quo.

I think that some scientists still elieve there is and hidden variable (personally I do not think there is, since I am an apt orthodox Copenhagen interpretation kind of guy) in quantum theory and are searching for it, although they are of course a minority (obviously).

There are still many debates regarding quantum theory, especially certain fundamental interpretations.

As one of my old university professors used to say “we cannot understand quantum theory, we can only DO quantum theory” (I think Griffith said that as well in his textbooks)

================

How do you react to the point that (for example) quantum events such as radioactive decay already provide an example of ‘uncaused causes’?

There is still a cause necessary. There is no radioactive decay without an atom.

As people would have already have argued above, there are not only accidental and efficient causes.

Even if science is not keen on the ‘four aristotelian causes’ we do not say ‘oh radiactive decay just happens with no cause’. I mean it’s not like we have (electro)weak theory to explain it, right.

Even if there is no deterministic efficient cause, it is not a a case of uncaused event

Again, you confuse two things from very different categories. The potential that must exist for an event to occur, and the trigger (if any) that causes that potentiality to become actuality.

In the case of spontaneous radioactive decay, according to Quantum Mechanics, there is no triggering event.

And I’d say: so what if there is not? It does not prove your point not would this pose a problem to ANY classical theist.

Now apologists often conflate this argument with other “arguments from the first cause” such as the contingency argument, but I think this just muddles things.

Nope. This is just explaining thing.

It is better to discuss this argument and (for example) the contingency argument seperately and on their own merits - unless you are deliberately using the confusion as a rhetorical trick to avoid admitting that one such argument does not work, which I hope we all agree would be dishonest and pointless.

that’s what you are doing. Avoiding the issues. And claiming something is ‘muddles’ because it has some level of complesity of subtlelty that goes beyond the ‘trolling memes’ atheists usually use to make their own arguments.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What ‘terms’?

That you must prove an assertion to show that it is true, rather than making it and demanding that others accept its truth unless they can disprove it? That is the only ‘term’ I see in my post, and I have already given one good reason for it: if any assertion must be accepted unless disproven, I can ‘disprove’ it by merely asserting its falsehood, and that ‘disproof’ can be ‘disproven’ by asserting its falsehood and so on ad infinitum.

I have said nothing of the sort - on the contrary I have said that I think the discussion of Hidden Variables I linked to is quite accessible to people of only moderate intelligence and education. Furthermore, this discussion applies to only one aspect of one alleged ‘proof of God’.

What I do say is that when you are criticising a whole group of educated and intelligent people for not having considered a (rather naive) objection, and it is pointed out to you that that objection had been dealt with in detail, and that a link to that discussion had been posted just a few comments earlier, you really ought to read the discussion before repeating the criticism.

Hold your horses - before you announce your candidacy for martyrdom and beatification, perhaps you could point out where I called you a “fool”? I, on the other hand, have long since stopped counting the times I have Psalms 14:1 thrown in my face!

You can be a devout christian without thinking that the existence of God can be (logically) proven, but still, I am sure that there are scientists who do believe in such proofs.

So what? I disagree with them. We are allowed to do that in science. I am happy to debate their alleged ‘proofs’ with them. What do you think any of this proves?

It isn’t that lengthy, and could have easily been summarised here. It amounts to “I assert that I have a proof that there must be one and only one uncaused cause, and for details go buy my book”!

So, without going to buy his book - “at a discounted price (about $19.00)” - it seems clear that he is making a rather more subtle argument than the classic infinite regress of cause and effect. I have, from way back in the discussion, admitted that such arguments exist, but that they are totally different from the original infinite regress argument and so trying to conflate the two (apparently merely to avoid admitting that the first argument fails) is pointless at best, dishonest at worst.

I am also very suspicious of someone who claims to believe in God, and that that God is benevolent and wants us to believe in him, and who claims to have proof of all this, but then demands money to show these proofs rather than placing them on the Wiki site he already has.

Ismael answers you very well in posts 79-81. Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

Casual loops have never been a problem. It’s not like we just discovered them

I don’t know about “casual loops”, but there are a few potential problems with causal loops in real life. You even refer to one below - how do you reconcile one with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Nonetheless (I am told) there are cosmological models that allow for them.

While accidental causes might ‘loop’ essential causes cannot and a loop of accidental causes still needs an ‘outside cause’, since it still is a contingent system which cannot be its own cause.

Again, I have been absolutely explicit about what I am referring to - even rephrasing it to avoid the word “cause” that some here seem unable to see past. Many also seem utterly unable to agree that such-and-such an ‘argument for God’ does not work, and present an alternative. Instead they seem to insist that the discussion has been about a different argument all along.

And as I said before, your assertion that a causal loop “is a contingent system which cannot be its own cause” comes back to a completely different argument - the contingency argument.

So are you defending the infinite regression of triggering events argument, or startign a completely different argument?

I think that makes little sense.

To say that the ‘laws of logic are time reversible’ is an incredibly vague and pointless statement, I think.

Well, if that very simple parallel confuses you, why not stick to the very clear question to which it was attached:

Since I have yet to see the explicit argument against what you call regressus ad infinitum, I can’t argue why that should apply to progressus ad infinitum - all I can say is that I can’t see why it shouldn’t.

So if you are defending the claim that an infinite past chain of events is impossible, then do please give your argument, and (if it is not clear from that) explain whether or not and why it would also apply to an infinite future chain of events.

Now this whole discussion is mostly meaningles when talking about (pure) logic

Utterly meaningless. I have no idea why you brought it up.

If everything has an accidental cause then the system either has a beginning or is “looping”.

No - if everything has an accidental cause, there can be no beginning. Either that beginning has an accidental cause (which must precede it) and is therefore not the ‘beginning’ or it does not - in which case you have violated your initial axiom.

So PHYSICS seems to point out that there can be no looping system (a problem, among others, with the ‘big bounce model’ of the universe was indeed violation of the second law of thermodynamics.)

Nonetheless - there are a number of oscillating universe models, models allowing closed timelike curves, and ‘branching universe’ models which also require some get out clause from the 2nd law. So the physicists disagree with you on this.

Sure, we have to address the 2nd law, but it doesn’t rule these options out entirely.

A simple example: a particle going in circles: even if it goes or went in circles forever, it would still need a per se cause, in this case a material cause of the particle existing itself. It would make little sense (or no sense at all) to just claim ‘it has no cause’

Why not? You are again making an assertion with no supporting argument. I suspect you are also reverting to more of a contingency argument.

Hence the burden of proof falls on you to prove that can even theoretically existe a “regressus ad infinitum”…

Nope - until you have provided an argument, beyond some shaky physics, that an infinite regress of events is imnpossible I have no burden of proof. Why would I? I am just trying to understand how you defend this argument - if you are doing so, as opposed to trying to switch to a different argument or indeed are just being contrarian.

 

[DrTaffy]

Right because atheists nevee sell books, containing their propaganda, right?

You are just biased.

Of course, everyone is biased.

But can you really not see the disconnect of:

1. 
   *]Claiming you want to convert people to belief in God
   *]Claiming you have a proof that would do so
   *]refusing to put that proof on your website (an act that would cost you nothing) and instead only showing that proof to those who will pay you for the privilege?
   

   I think you fail on many levels in understanding the argument itself (as I have shown above, by the way).

   All you have shown above is that you are trying to discuss a different proof.
   

   Theists, for example do not claime that there are no infinite regresses possible,

   Oh yes they do. Often. I posted a link previously.
   
   You might want to consider just saying that you disagree with those theists, and are not defending that argument. But to paraphrase your jeer below, we would not want you to inconvenience you with politeness!
   

   just an example by Ed Feser… and hey it’s free so you do not have to lament you have to buy a book (or read it, we would not want you to inconvenience you with knowledge!):
   
   edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html

   Well, despite your sneering manner, I’ll have a look at it. Later - at first glance it is (again) defending a different argument.
   

   Right because wiki sites are the pinnacle of truth an reliability… not like a Dawkins fanboy might just vandalize or delete content, right?

   … I’m guessing you just don’t know what ‘wiki sites’ actually mean. Otherwise why on earth would the CMS system influence the truth value of what the author writes?
   
   The point, for those struggling, was that it would have been trivial for him to have put the argument on his website. No need even to use a web designer, just click on the “add page” button and edit the template.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;10715542:

Linusthe2nd;10714236:

Some people like to introduce special knowledge only available to physicists because they think they can say any outlandish thing they want and it will defeat their oponent.

Only to the same extent that ‘some people’ like to ’ introduce special knowledge only available to theologans because they think they can say any outlandish thing they want and it will defeat their oponent’

Also I can say the very same to you:

Only to the same extent that ‘some people’ like to ’ introduce special knowledge only available to scientists because they think they can say any outlandish.

Great, we’re in a causal loop of our own!

Yes, both sides have masses of turgid prose, and often deliberately obscure terminology, but I have at least tried to provide readable, accessible explanations of these points. You’re not doing so well on that front so far.

You are just dabbling in dishonesty here.

Stay polite, or this discussion is over.

Also in naivety: a wiki site is according to you something reliable, equal, let’s say going to college?

Where have I compared a wiki site in reliability to anything like a college course?

Again, why would Fr. Robert Spitzer’s writings be “less reliable” because he writes them on a Wiki rather than in a book?

I think that some scientists still elieve there is and hidden variable

Of course they do. Had you read and understood the page linked to, you would have seen explicit reference to some of them.

There is still a cause necessary. There is no radioactive decay without an atom.

You’ve completely missed the point. I’ve covered this in other replies to that comment.

As people would have already have argued above, there are not only accidental and efficient causes.

And as I have already responded, I am happy to discuss arguments based on those other ‘causes’ (with polite contributors) as long as we are clear what argument we are talking about and what terms such as “cause” mean in that context.

Even if science is not keen on the ‘four aristotelian causes’ we do not say ‘oh radiactive decay just happens with no cause’.

Actually we do, we are just clear about what we mean by “cause” in that context.

And I’d say: so what if there is not? It does not prove your point not would this pose a problem to ANY classical theist.

Certainly not to the ones polite and bright enough to say “no, I also don’t agree with that argument for God, but consider this related argument…”

Nope. This is just explaining thing.

Nope. Confusing two different arguments (or two different meanings of “cause”) is ‘muddling things’, not explaining them.

 

[Ismael]

Nope - until you have provided an argument, beyond some shaky physics, that an infinite regress of events is imnpossible I have no burden of proof. Why would I? I am just trying to understand how you defend this argument - if you are doing so, as opposed to trying to switch to a different argument or indeed are just being contrarian.

You are quikly to dismiss to give some proof.

But what you call ‘shaky physics’ are the laws of thermodynamics.

Anyway you are claiming that ‘infinite causal regress is possible’ and I think it’s a bit much to just assume it at priori.

Mind you we are talking about causal series, not just some series or set of abstract objects, like the set of real numbers between 0 and 1, which is indeed infinite, (uncountable even) and indeed if one ‘divides a number by n’ he can do so infinitively without going out of the set.

Also I have no problem with an infinite accidental and temporal series of causes, as I said. So I could concede even that the universe is infinite in time like some scientists and philosophers believed before Lemaitre and Hubble.

Nonetheless - there are a number of oscillating universe models, models allowing closed timelike curves, and ‘branching universe’ models which also require some get out clause from the 2nd law. So the physicists disagree with you on this.

Yes we physicists do disagree a lot on things that have no empirical basis (or even have some empirical basis), but there is a reason why some theories are favored (beyond personal bias at least). Some theories are even plain ‘cooky’…(but then the wolrd is a strange place…)

And yes maybe the laws of physics can be bypassed or might even ‘break down’ (much like newtonian physics at very high speeds) in certain conditions.

Yet, that’s speculations.

No - if everything has an accidental cause, there can be no beginning. Either that beginning has an accidental cause (which must precede it) and is therefore not the ‘beginning’ or it does not - in which case you have violated your initial axiom.
/QUOTE

If everything has an accidental cause there might be no terminus in accidental causes, no.

Bu then again Classical Theism (in general, albeit there are variations) does not say ‘everything has a cause’ nor ‘accidental causes need a terminus’.

Aquinas even thought one could not prove the universe had a temporal and accidental beginning (although he believed so), hence he (and others) did not argue in those terms.

Of course each argument might be a discussion on it’s own, since each one has his differences. Thomist arguments, for example are not like Kalaam’s argument upheld by Craig.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What ‘terms’?

That you must prove an assertion to show that it is true, rather than making it and demanding that others accept its truth unless they can disprove it? That is the only ‘term’ I see in my post, and I have already given one good reason for it: if any assertion must be accepted unless disproven, I can ‘disprove’ it by merely asserting its falsehood, and that ‘disproof’ can be ‘disproven’ by asserting its falsehood and so on ad infinitum.

I have said nothing of the sort - on the contrary I have said that I think the discussion of Hidden Variables I linked to is quite accessible to people of only moderate intelligence and education. Furthermore, this discussion applies to only one aspect of one alleged ‘proof of God’.

What I do say is that when you are criticising a whole group of educated and intelligent people for not having considered a (rather naive) objection, and it is pointed out to you that that objection had been dealt with in detail, and that a link to that discussion had been posted just a few comments earlier, you really ought to read the discussion before repeating the criticism.

Hold your horses - before you announce your candidacy for martyrdom and beatification, perhaps you could point out where I called you a “fool”? I, on the other hand, have long since stopped counting the times I have Psalms 14:1 thrown in my face!

You can be a devout christian without thinking that the existence of God can be (logically) proven, but still, I am sure that there are scientists who do believe in such proofs.

So what? I disagree with them. We are allowed to do that in science. I am happy to debate their alleged ‘proofs’ with them. What do you think any of this proves?

It isn’t that lengthy, and could have easily been summarised here. It amounts to “I assert that I have a proof that there must be one and only one uncaused cause, and for details go buy my book”!

So, without going to buy his book - “at a discounted price (about $19.00)” - it seems clear that he is making a rather more subtle argument than the classic infinite regress of cause and effect. I have, from way back in the discussion, admitted that such arguments exist, but that they are totally different from the original infinite regress argument and so trying to conflate the two (apparently merely to avoid admitting that the first argument fails) is pointless at best, dishonest at worst.

I am also very suspicious of someone who claims to believe in God, and that that God is benevolent and wants us to believe in him, and who claims to have proof of all this, but then demands money to show these proofs rather than placing them on the Wiki site he already has.

You don’t have to buy a book, it’s an on line article. There are also some appropriate on line videos.

You haven’t proven anything yet.

In the final analysis we come down to this choice. The God of Christianity exists as claimed ( which may be hard to understand intellectually or to prove philosophically ) or we are confronted with a universe with no sufficient reason for its existence ( which no intellectually honest person can allow, it is unreasonable and contrary to reason). It is just not reasonable to claim that the universe just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed.

Perhaps we cannot explain to the satisfaction of all how or why God is necessary but that does not mean He is not or that He is not necessary. For it is clear that there is a class of people that will absolutely not accept any explanation, no matter what.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

You are quikly to dismiss to give some proof.

Yes - when I have made no assertion, I am indeed ‘quikly to dismiss to give some proof’, as you put it. Why shouldn’t I be?

But what you call ‘shaky physics’ are the laws of thermodynamics.

Well, no, that was not what I was referring to. But the laws of thermodynamics, especially the 2nd one, are statistical and not by any means necessarily universally applicable.

Anyway you are claiming that ‘infinite causal regress is possible’ and I think it’s a bit much to just assume it at priori.

No - I am asking you to justify the assertion that ‘infinite causal regress is not possible’. If you are making that assertion, that is, as opposed to just being belligerent and contrarian.

Also I have no problem with an infinite accidental and temporal series of causes, as I said.

So what are you complaining about? As I asked Linus earlier:

So what are we doing? Are you responding to my earlier posts or opening a whole new topic?

No - if everything has an accidental cause, there can be no beginning. Either that beginning has an accidental cause (which must precede it) and is therefore not the ‘beginning’ or it does not - in which case you have violated your initial axiom.

What? Care to rephrase that?

Bu then again Classical Theism (in general, albeit there are variations) does not say ‘everything has a cause’

So what is your justification for asserting that a random ‘thing’ (i.e. a causal loop) must have a cause?

Aquinas even thought one could not prove the universe had a temporal and accidental beginning

I agree with him. That is the point I am defending, and the one you (to take your posts here literally) are attacking.

Of course each argument might be a discussion on it’s own, since each one has his differences. Thomist arguments, for example are not like Kalaam’s argument upheld by Craig.

What??
Don’t be absurd! you cannot possibly allow us atheists to discuss each argument seperately, otherwise you might be forced to concede that one such argument is not actually valid!

Confuse and obfusticate, that is the theist way!!

 

[DrTaffy]

You don’t have to buy a book, it’s an on line article.

But, as I pointed out, the online article does not actually give the relevant arguments. It just says things like “…in the three philosophical proofs given in NPEG (Chapters Three through Five)…”

For anyone else who actually tries reading the link (apparently Not The Done Thing on this forum, I know) NPEG refers to Fr. Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Eerdmans 2010) available from Amazon.com at a discounted price of ‘about’ $19.00!!

There are also some appropriate on line videos.

Linking to those might have been more helpful. Or indeed just referencing the book. Since the link does not actually prove your point I am guessing you did not take the time to read and understand it (again, Not The Done Thing, I gather).

Another more thoughtful poster has directed me to the videos, and I will look at them in due time.

You haven’t proven anything yet.

Gosh, almost as though I am here to understand your point of view instead of trying to convert you to mine! How very dare I!

In the final analysis we come down to this choice. The God of Christianity exists as claimed ( which may be hard to understand intellectually or to prove philosophically ) or we are confronted with a universe with no sufficient reason for its existence ( which no intellectually honest person can allow, it is unreasonable and contrary to reason).

Third option: the universe has a ‘sufficient reason’ other than the “God of Christianity”.

Come on, don’t do this to me, I am far too young to start muttering “logic! what do they teach in schools these days?” like the crusty old professor in “the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”! :frighten:

It is just not reasonable to claim that the universe just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed.

So why is it reasonable to claim that God “just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed”? That’s one of the big challenges facing proponents of this sort of argument. Some of them make a reasonable punt at answering it - you have yet to do so.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But, as I pointed out, the online article does not actually give the relevant arguments. It just says things like “…in the three philosophical proofs given in NPEG (Chapters Three through Five)…”

For anyone else who actually tries reading the link (apparently Not The Done Thing on this forum, I know) NPEG refers to Fr. Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Eerdmans 2010) available from Amazon.com at a discounted price of ‘about’ $19.00!!

Linking to those might have been more helpful. Or indeed just referencing the book. Since the link does not actually prove your point I am guessing you did not take the time to read and understand it (again, Not The Done Thing, I gather).

Another more thoughtful poster has directed me to the videos, and I will look at them in due time.

Gosh, almost as though I am here to understand your point of view instead of trying to convert you to mine! How very dare I!

Third option: the universe has a ‘sufficient reason’ other than the “God of Christianity”.

Come on, don’t do this to me, I am far too young to start muttering “logic! what do they teach in schools these days?” like the crusty old professor in “the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”! :frighten:

So why is it reasonable to claim that God “just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed”? That’s one of the big challenges facing proponents of this sort of argument. Some of them make a reasonable punt at answering it - you have yet to do so.

Do you concede that Thomas Aquinas made a " reasonable punt? "

So you think the universe just exists under its own causal power and always done so?
That is an idea that seems far from reasonable. :whackadoo:

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

Do you concede that Thomas Aquinas made a " reasonable punt? "

For his time - he certainly moved the debate on a fair way. Obviously I don’t find his alleged ‘proofs’ sufficient to ‘prove’ God to one who doesn’t already assume his existence.

However I am not talking to Aquinas, but to you. So again, why is it reasonable according to you to claim that God “just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed” but not to make the same claim about anything else?

So you think the universe just exists under its own causal power and always done so?

The Universe (literally ‘everything that exists’) clearly ‘exists under its own causal power.’

It exists because, look around you and by jingo there it is. Not the most philosophically rigorous of arguments, but outside of academia it probably satisfies most people.

It cannot exist under the ‘causal power’ of anything else, as it is ‘everything that exists’ so there is nothing else.

So the question is whether it is justifiable to subdivide the Universe into one bit (or more) that ‘exists under its own causal power’ and the rest that relies on part A. And then there is the question of what the nature of part(s) A would be - which gets us back to the actual topic of the thread, if anyone cares.

That is an idea that seems far from reasonable. :whackadoo:

So other than posting ‘whackadoo’ smilies, do you have a logical argument for that assertion?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

For his time - he certainly moved the debate on a fair way. Obviously I don’t find his alleged ‘proofs’ sufficient to ‘prove’ God to one who doesn’t already assume his existence.

However I am not talking to Aquinas, but to you. So again, why is it reasonable according to you to claim that God “just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed” but not to make the same claim about anything else?

Thomas would appreciate the compliment.
I never said God " just popped into existence." Thomas has shown His eternal existence is a logical necessity.

The Universe (literally ‘everything that exists’) clearly 'exists under its own causal power.'It exists because, look around you and by jingo there it is. Not the most philosophically rigorous of arguments, but outside of academia it probably satisfies most people.

Surely you jest. It is no where near clear that it exists " under its own causal power. " We all know it exists, we can see it. That is not proof it accounts for its own existence. How can a mindless physical universe account for its own existence? And I sincerely doubt that most of the folks " outside academia " think that it does.

It cannot exist under the ‘causal power’ of anything else, as it is ‘everything that exists’ so there is nothing else.

Really Dr. ( are you really a Dr. ? ), that doesn’t follow at all. " I see the universe, so nothing else can exist. " What kind of logic is that? " I can’t see God, so he doesn’t exist. " What kind of logic is that?

So the question is whether it is justifiable to subdivide the Universe into one bit (or more) that ‘exists under its own causal power’ and the rest that relies on part A. And then there is the question of what the nature of part(s) A would be - which gets us back to the actual topic of the thread, if anyone cares.

To be honest, it is you who insists " God " is a part of the universe, and with no justification either. So, we ( I and my tribe ) do not divide the universe between that which " exists under its own causal power " and that which relies on it. So to set the record straight, God is not a part of the physical universe but operates in it and is present in it - a huge difference.

We have offered to you the Five Ways of St. Thomas, which you reject, and you certainly reject every other argument which could be offered. So why are you here? We have offered you the reasonableness of our belief in the fact and history of Divine Revelation and you reject that. So why are you here?

I wish you well in your godless universe but you are wasting your time here. Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

I never said God " just popped into existence." Thomas has shown His eternal existence is a logical necessity.

I never said you did. You did, however, claim that:

It is just not reasonable to claim that the universe just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed.

Which fairly obviously provokes the question I did actually ask:

So again, why is it reasonable according to you to claim that God “just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed” but not to make the same claim about anything else?

You have yet to answer this.

Surely you jest. It is no where near clear that it exists " under its own causal power. " We all know it exists, we can see it.

That is what I said!

That is not proof it accounts for its own existence.

If it is all that exists, what else could account for its existence? Something that does not exist?

How can a mindless physical universe account for its own existence?

You are throwing in new restrictions. I did not limit “the Universe” to that which is ‘mindless’ or ‘physical’. Nor do I need to explain how it can “account for its own existence” - any more than you can, or need to, explain exactly how God is made up or how He created the (rest of the) Universe. Although it would be nice to be able do so.

It suffices to observe that the Universe does exist, and work from there.

Really Dr. ( are you really a Dr. ? ),

I really am, sorry! :crying:

On the bright side I am ‘only’ a Dr of Physics and Chemistry, neither of which subjects really impact on this point. I only added the ‘Dr’ to the ‘Taffy’ because the registration robot refused to accept ‘Taffy’.

that doesn’t follow at all. " I see the universe, so nothing else can exist. " What kind of logic is that? "

The kind I did not make. The Universe is defined as “the totality of existence” - I only use the fact that I can see it as proof that something exists (i.e. “the Universe” is not an empty set) not as justification for its definition.

I can’t see God, so he doesn’t exist. " What kind of logic is that?

Again, the kind I did not use. “Pathetic Straw Man” would be the technical term, I believe.

To be honest, it is you who insists " God " is a part of the universe, and with no justification either.

Not at all, if you want to assert that God is not part of the set “everything that exists” I would, in fact, agree with you.

Welcome to the club, and you might want to change the “Religion” entry on your profile.

So why are you here?

Looking for rational debate. a.k.a. “rabid optimism”

I wish you well in your godless universe but you are wasting your time here.

I hope not, but you do seem, so far, to be supporting evidence for your assertion.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I never said you did. You did, however, claim that:

I said that God always existed and that his nature is absolutely other that the mode of existence of our limited, contingent universe and that he absolutely transcends it, but that he operates in it carrying out his Plan for its existence.

Which fairly obviously provokes the question I did actually ask:

We don’t know " how " he always existed, we only know that if it were not so we would not exist.

You have yet to answer this.

I did answer it. But to repeat, I never said God just " popped " into existence. That was your claim! I said, he has simply existed eternally. I also said that, philosophically speaking, our limited, contingent universe may be eternal or it may have had a beginning in time. In either case it has always, does now, and will always depend on the transcendent God for its existence and order. This has been demonstrated by Thomas Aquinas. But the absolute certainty of this is verified by the self disclosure of Gods will and purposes through his Divine Revelation. I know that doesn’t satisfy you but it is nevertheless true.

That is what I said!

You also said that it existed under its own casual power. I have shown that this is not true and it is most unreasonable to suggest that that is possible.

If it is all that exists, what else could account for its existence? Something that does not exist?

You are basing this conclusion on your " faith " that the God Thomas Aquinas reasoned to and Who has revealed himself through Divine Revelation does not exist. You may of course dismiss these " proofs " but you have nothing at all to prove that the universe can and does account for its existence. To say that because it exists proves that it accounts for its own existence, is no form of logic, it is wistful thinking, it is blind faith.

You are throwing in new restrictions. I did not limit “the Universe” to that which is ‘mindless’ or ‘physical’. Nor do I need to explain how it can “account for its own existence” - any more than you can, or need to, explain exactly how God is made up or how He created the (rest of the) Universe. Although it would be nice to be able do so.

It suffices to observe that the Universe does exist, and work from there.

Are you suggesting then that " your " universe contains a mind in its very nature? If so that would get us back to some form of Pantheism.

Indeed we do start from the universe as we experience it. That is exactly what St. Thomas and Augustine and the Greeks did. And, lo and behold, Thomas showed us that the existence of the God he discovered was a logical necessity.

On the bright side I am ‘only’ a Dr of Physics and Chemistry, neither of which subjects really impact on this point.

Well, I won’t hold that against you.
Now that you have gone that far, why not get a Phd in Scholastic Philosophy?

defined as

“the totality of existence” - I only use the fact that I can see it as proof that something exists (i.e. “the Universe” is not an empty set) not as justification for its definition.

Oh, that is pure scientism. Science cannot logically make such a claim. It cannot know that what we can see and measure and detect through some man made apparatus is all that exists. When science makes such claims it is stepping into the arena of Philosophy. I don’t object to that, but science better have some pretty good reasons and it will have to adopt the philosophical system of Thomas Aquinas to do that.

Again, the kind I did not use. “Pathetic Straw Man” would be the technical term, I believe.

Nonsense. You certainly implied it. That is what this whole discussion has been about.

Not at all, if you want to assert that God is not part of the set “everything that exists” I would, in fact, agree with you.

The term " set " is your device, not mine. But if you insist, I would agree that God would definitely be included in any " set " of beings that existed. However, with the stipulation that all the beings of this " set " are not confined to the limited, contingent universe, that at least One Being of the " set " is absolutely other than the limited, contingent nature of the beings in limited, contingent universe and absolutely transcends it.

Welcome to the club, and you might want to change the “Religion” entry on your profile.

My oh my, but I’ll let that pass.

Looking for rational debate. a.k.a. “rabid optimism”

Sorry to disappoint you. But the rationality of this debate reverbrates throughout the physical universe as you know. I have no fear of the truth, even mere philosophical truth, for even that is a reflection of the Eternal Word which goes forth throughout the world, growing and spreading as the tiny mustard seed. But lies, deception, sophism will be a snare to those who use them.

Linus2nd

 

[tdgesq]

So again, why is it reasonable according to you to claim that God “just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed” but not to make the same claim about anything else?

God is the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument. The short answer is that physical being cannot exist without a cause. Non-physical being can. The point is that a non-physical and non-material being must be the uncaused cause of the universe.

The Universe (literally ‘everything that exists’) clearly ‘exists under its own causal power.’

oh, dear. We are speaking of the origins of the universe, not what now exists. And the universe clearly can’t “cause” its own existence, because it would have to exist first before it could be a cause of itself.

 

[DrTaffy]

I said that God always existed and that his nature is absolutely other that the mode of existence of our limited, contingent universe and that he absolutely transcends it, but that he operates in it carrying out his Plan for its existence.

Yeeah… I am not sure you did. But in any case that does not change the fact that you did say:

It is just not reasonable to claim that the universe just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed.

Which provoked my question:

So again, why is it reasonable according to you to claim that God “just popped into existence without a cause or that it just always existed” but not to make the same claim about anything else?

…which you still have not answered. You instead try to evade the question by ignoring the bit in red and claiming that I said you had said God just popped into existence.

I could of course turn your rhetoric back on you and point out that I never claimed that the universe “just popped into existence” - but while that argument actually does work for me (as I am not here to promote any given cosmology) the bit that interests me is why you think this claim can be made about God and only about God.

You also said that it existed under its own casual power. I have shown that this is not true and it is most unreasonable to suggest that that is possible.

Nonsense. Again, unless you are claiming that “God does not exist” (welcome to the fold, brother!) then God would be part of “the Universe”, so even by your worldview “the Universe” exists under its own causal (not casual) power - you just claim that that causal power is all vested in one specific, sentient part of it.

DrTaffy;10788032:

If it is all that exists

, what else could account for its existence? Something that does not exist?

You are basing this conclusion on your " faith " that the God Thomas Aquinas reasoned to and Who has revealed himself through Divine Revelation does not exist.

No, I am basing it on the definition of ‘the Universe’ and a simple tautology.

DrTaffy;10788032:

You are throwing in new restrictions. I did not limit “the Universe” to that which is ‘mindless’ or ‘physical’.

Are you suggesting then that " your " universe contains a mind in its very nature?

No, I am merely pointing out that ‘the Universe’ does not exclude those things that have minds.

Well, I won’t hold that against you.
Now that you have gone that far, why not get a Phd in Scholastic Philosophy?

I prefer to stick to real subjects.

The kind I did not make. The Universe is defined as

No, that is pure logic.

Science cannot logically make such a claim. It cannot know that what we can see and measure and detect through some man made apparatus is all that exists.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that the Universe is defined as “the totality of existence”.

DrTaffy;10788032:

Linusthe2nd;10786298:

I can’t see God, so he doesn’t exist. " What kind of logic is that?

Again, the kind I did not use. “Pathetic Straw Man” would be the technical term, I believe.

Nonsense. You certainly implied it. That is what this whole discussion has been about.

Again, nonsense. Nowhere have I argued that “I can’t see God, so he doesn’t exist” or anything of the sort, anymore than I called you a ‘fool’ as you claimed.

DrTaffy;10788032:

Not at all, if you want to assert that God is not part of the set “everything that exists” I would, in fact, agree with you.

The term " set " is your device, not mine.

Irrelevant, as it makes the sentence clearer but in no way changes its meaning. If you want to assert that God is not part of “everything that exists” that still means that you are asserting his nonexistence.

I have no fear of the truth

Then can I look forward to you admitting that I never called you a fool, never claimed that “I can’t see God, so he doesn’t exist” or that the Spitzer wiki page you cited does not actually prove what you claimed?

 

[polytropos]

Which is irrelevant to the fact that the Universe is defined as “the totality of existence”.
…
Irrelevant, as it makes the sentence clearer but in no way changes its meaning. If you want to assert that God is not part of “everything that exists” that still means that you are asserting his nonexistence.

The universe is the totality of physical being. The Church has never held that God is part of the universe. When we say that creation exists and God exists, we are not actually using the same predicate. This is a consequence of the inherent limitations of language in expressing God’s nature. The existence of creation and of God are analogical, not univocal. This was the position of early church thinkers up to Thomas Aquinas (it also squares well with early transubstantiation doctrine).

John Duns Scotus was the first medieval thinker to depart from this understanding in insisting that creation and God had to have some shared genus, which he called existence. This is the mode of thinking under which the Protestant Reformation occurred; if God and creation exist in the same way, then of course transubstantiation is incoherent. But that is not the position of the Church.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yeeah… I am not sure you did. But in any case that does not change the fact that you did say:

Which provoked my question:

…which you still have not answered. You instead try to evade the question by ignoring the bit in red and claiming that I said you had said God just popped into existence.

I could of course turn your rhetoric back on you and point out that I never claimed that the universe “just popped into existence” - but while that argument actually does work for me (as I am not here to promote any given cosmology) the bit that interests me is why you think this claim can be made about God and only about God.

Nonsense. Again, unless you are claiming that “God does not exist” (welcome to the fold, brother!) then God would be part of “the Universe”, so even by your worldview “the Universe” exists under its own causal (not casual) power - you just claim that that causal power is all vested in one specific, sentient part of it.

No, I am basing it on the definition of ‘the Universe’ and a simple tautology.

No, I am merely pointing out that ‘the Universe’ does not exclude those things that have minds.

I prefer to stick to real subjects.

No, that is pure logic.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that the Universe is defined as “the totality of existence”.

Again, nonsense. Nowhere have I argued that “I can’t see God, so he doesn’t exist” or anything of the sort, anymore than I called you a ‘fool’ as you claimed.

Irrelevant, as it makes the sentence clearer but in no way changes its meaning. If you want to assert that God is not part of “everything that exists” that still means that you are asserting his nonexistence.

Then can I look forward to you admitting that I never called you a fool, never claimed that “I can’t see God, so he doesn’t exist” or that the Spitzer wiki page you cited does not actually prove what you claimed?

Hey, I’m not going to go back over the history of this conversation. If I misstated what you said or implied that you said something you didn’t, I apologize. And no, you never called me a " fool. " Did I say you did? I still insist that you implied that " God didn’t exist because you couldn’t see ( detect in some physical way) him. But I’m not going to argue over it. You can get a synopsis of Spitzer’s arguments here: magisreasonfaith.org/pdf/Magis_FactSheet.pdf

Quite frankly though, I prefer the arguments of St. Thomas because they do not rely upon a universe that had a beginning in time. His arguments apply equally to an eternal universe or to one that had a beginning in time.

Chow! Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

The universe is the totality of physical being.

That is a more restrictive definition than the one I was using. So does not change my point.

When we say that creation exists and God exists, we are not actually using the same predicate.

There may be fundamental differences, but there are also similarities. Back to my point, “everything that exists” must include anything that ‘causes’ its existence, unless you argue that that ‘cause’ is something that ‘does not exist.’ This is rigorously true, independent of the definition of ‘exist’, so I don’t see what differences might invalidate that statement.

Now if you want to assert that your proposed God is fundamentally different in the mode of his existence (or however you want to frame it) feel free - bearing in mind that the onus is then on you to be clear about what you do mean by ‘God exists’. But tautologically you still have to prove that existence (from first principles) to be able to claim that ‘you have proven his existence.’
(That is none too clear but I can’t think of a better phrase, so I will post this as it is.)

I think a common problem in these debates is that theists start with a lot of assumptions about God - that he exists, obviously, and a lot of points like yours, giving him special status. So they then fail to see how this colours their language, and that as a result, from the atheist’s perspective, they have skipped over essential steps in their argument, effectively slipping in those preconceptions as unstated axioms, and so have not proven their argument. At best they have shown that their concept of God is internally coherent.

These preconceptions can also colour their perception of atheists’ comments. For example: without such preconceptions, the conclusion that ‘everything that exists’ must include any existent cause of ‘everything that exists’ is obvious - the confusion is caused (I assume) by the preconception that God is somehow seperate and not ‘part of the Universe’ even when I had clearly defined ’ Universe’ as ‘everything that exists’! So at that stage of the conversation the theist has slipped in the assumption that ‘God exists and is seperate from the Universe’ without proving it and apparently without considering its coherence, given the definition of ‘universe’ being used.

Getting to a conclusion that there is a sentient uncaused cause with various special qualities is a big job, not one that can just be assumed, and is also the topic of this thread.

My first post in this thread was in response to a good punt at doing so. Jonathan_Hill proposed a sort of ratchet mechanism that any cause must be ‘greater’ than its’ effect, so the uncaused cause must be the ‘greatest’ of all. Apart from disagreeing with his proposed ratchet, this argument presupposes various things, most obviously that there is one, and only one, ‘uncaused cause’. This leads to quibbles about what we mean by ‘cause’ in this context, and has rather derailed the thread.
I am happy to talk about any of these issues, but would prefer to talk about the topic of the thread - how do you conclude that the ‘uncaused cause’ has the qualities you claim (e.g. sentience).
Clarity on what you mean by ‘cause’ and what point of mine (if any) you are actually addressing is also likely to avoid more talking at cross purposes.

John Duns Scotus was the first medieval thinker to depart from this understanding in insisting that creation and God had to have some shared genus, which he called existence.

I believe Scotus went even further than I did, and included things that only ‘could’ exist as part of ‘the Universe’ - proving the need to be clear about what we mean by these terms if we are to have a meaningful debate.

 

[DrTaffy]

And no, you never called me a " fool. " Did I say you did?

Indeed:

You and those like you call us fools for believing, well, O.K.,We will be called " fools " gladly, for the learned of this world called Christ a fool too. We rejoice to be worthy to be judged as was He.

But I too would prefer to move on, ideally with the topic of the thread, rather than rehash the past.

I still insist that you implied that " God didn’t exist because you couldn’t see ( detect in some physical way) him.

Could you quote where I implied that? I said that we can conclude that ‘the Universe’ exists because we can see it, but that is the closest I can see.

Short answer: no I don’t make or believe that argument. The closest I might get is a form of positivism - saying that if anything (not just God) is in no way measurable or detectable and cannot be shown by reason, and that the same applies to any effects it may have, then we have no evidence for its existence, and indeed not much point in discussing it…

You can get a synopsis of Spitzer’s arguments here: magisreasonfaith.org/pdf/Magis_FactSheet.pdf

Can you explain which bit you feel is relevant, and to what part of the debate? There are a lot of assertions in there which could be relevant to one part or another of what has been said.