|
Post by gadreel on Aug 5, 2022 3:07:23 GMT
But you are giving God the property of being uncaused, what I am saying is that you dont need to do that, and in fact theology tells you that god is unknowable so precludes you from having this situation where you declare a rule (everything is caused) and then have to exempt something from this rule. In other words the first cause is not a first cause because it does not matter it is simply this universes first cause. As for OUR existence vs ALL existence, our existence is all practical existence, since the only thing outside of it would be God and we cannot know anything about God nor the existence it finds itself in, all we have to do on is the rule in OUR existence as above so below which we might like to apply to gods existence. At the end of the day the first cause argument is flawed because it relies on breaking it's own rules. No, I'm giving the first cause the property of being uncaused. Here it is again: "an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately depends"Now before you and I get bogged down in semantics, I understand the issue with the word "being," so I have no objections with using something else. Entity, perhaps? I also wouldn't object to removing "independent" if it's redundant. But it doesn't really matter because the point here is that while the conclusion may be a description of "that which we call God," the argument itself is just an argument for a first cause. Why is it special pleading when someone calls it God, but not when someone calls it the universe? God is presumed to have those traits; the universe is not. I mean, to most people, saying the first cause is God is to state the obvious. But to say the first cause is the universe is to make an exception to its own rules not only without justification, but in direct opposition to everything we know about natural law. At any rate, if it was caused, it's not the first cause. Call it what you will. Ok not really my point, the first cause IS god, because all we know about it is that it started the act of creation, God (because we dont know anything about it) is simpy defined as the creation source, in fact you will find a lot of people who think along the lines I am espousing use the word source. So forget the semtantics, we can call it whatever you want, it is the source of the universe. either way it is special pleading, you have a rule that you claim is immutable, that all things must have a cause, but then you say, well hold on this thing does not have a cause. There is no value in that as it firstly breaks your rule, because clearly now it is wrong not ALL things have a cause, and secondly it adds an attribute to something that by it's nature cannot be defined. For that reason the first cause argument is a failure.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2022 5:40:14 GMT
No, I'm giving the first cause the property of being uncaused. Here it is again: "an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately depends"Now before you and I get bogged down in semantics, I understand the issue with the word "being," so I have no objections with using something else. Entity, perhaps? I also wouldn't object to removing "independent" if it's redundant. But it doesn't really matter because the point here is that while the conclusion may be a description of "that which we call God," the argument itself is just an argument for a first cause. Why is it special pleading when someone calls it God, but not when someone calls it the universe? God is presumed to have those traits; the universe is not. I mean, to most people, saying the first cause is God is to state the obvious. But to say the first cause is the universe is to make an exception to its own rules not only without justification, but in direct opposition to everything we know about natural law. At any rate, if it was caused, it's not the first cause. Call it what you will. Ok not really my point, the first cause IS god, because all we know about it is that it started the act of creation, God (because we dont know anything about it) is simpy defined as the creation source, in fact you will find a lot of people who think along the lines I am espousing use the word source. So forget the semtantics, we can call it whatever you want, it is the source of the universe. either way it is special pleading, you have a rule that you claim is immutable, that all things must have a cause, but then you say, well hold on this thing does not have a cause. There is no value in that as it firstly breaks your rule, because clearly now it is wrong not ALL things have a cause, and secondly it adds an attribute to something that by it's nature cannot be defined. For that reason the first cause argument is a failure. Common mistake.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 7, 2022 17:44:57 GMT
Ok not really my point, the first cause IS god, because all we know about it is that it started the act of creation, God (because we dont know anything about it) is simpy defined as the creation source, in fact you will find a lot of people who think along the lines I am espousing use the word source. So forget the semtantics, we can call it whatever you want, it is the source of the universe. either way it is special pleading, you have a rule that you claim is immutable, that all things must have a cause, but then you say, well hold on this thing does not have a cause. There is no value in that as it firstly breaks your rule, because clearly now it is wrong not ALL things have a cause, and secondly it adds an attribute to something that by it's nature cannot be defined. For that reason the first cause argument is a failure. Common mistake. SO not everything has to have a cause?? Then there is no need for a chain of causes and so no first cause. I guess you are using a different definition of the first cause argument, as the argument is that everything has a cause but the universe is not infinite so there must be something that was not caused, which fails for the reason I outlined, can you explain what exactly YOUR first cause argument is?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 7, 2022 22:34:58 GMT
SO not everything has to have a cause?? Then there is no need for a chain of causes and so no first cause. I guess you are using a different definition of the first cause argument, as the argument is that everything has a cause but the universe is not infinite so there must be something that was not caused, which fails for the reason I outlined, can you explain what exactly YOUR first cause argument is? The premise of the argument isn't that everything has to have a cause; it's that everything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself. The ones who contend that there is an infinitely regressive chain of causes are fully aware of this. ps. It's not a "different definition" of the argument. It is the argument. Yours is a strawman. I'm not sure why Aquinas is credited with it, as it seems to me he was merely stating the obvious that anyone with a functioning brain can reason on their own, but if it helps, here's how he put it way back in the 13th century: "There is no case known in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which would be impossible."
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 7, 2022 23:22:42 GMT
SO not everything has to have a cause?? Then there is no need for a chain of causes and so no first cause. I guess you are using a different definition of the first cause argument, as the argument is that everything has a cause but the universe is not infinite so there must be something that was not caused, which fails for the reason I outlined, can you explain what exactly YOUR first cause argument is? The premise of the argument isn't that everything has to have a cause; it's that everything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself. The ones who contend that there is an infinitely regressive chain of causes are fully aware of this. ps. It's not a "different definition" of the argument. It is the argument. Yours is a strawman. I'm not sure why Aquinas is credited with it, as it seems to me he was merely stating the obvious that anyone with a functioning brain can reason on their own, but if it helps, here's how he put it way back in the 13th century: "There is no case known in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which would be impossible." And so if you read Aquinas, he says everything has a cause external to itself, so then if you think the first cause does not you have excluded it from your rule. You have therefore declared a rule and then declared an exemption which belies the logic of the rule.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 7, 2022 23:46:53 GMT
The premise of the argument isn't that everything has to have a cause; it's that everything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself. The ones who contend that there is an infinitely regressive chain of causes are fully aware of this. ps. It's not a "different definition" of the argument. It is the argument. Yours is a strawman. I'm not sure why Aquinas is credited with it, as it seems to me he was merely stating the obvious that anyone with a functioning brain can reason on their own, but if it helps, here's how he put it way back in the 13th century: "There is no case known in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which would be impossible."And so if you read Aquinas, he says everything has a cause external to itself, so then if you think the first cause does not you have excluded it from your rule. You have therefore declared a rule and then declared an exemption which belies the logic of the rule. I just responded to that. Here it is again with the relevant part in bold: The premise of the argument isn't that everything has to have a cause; it's that everything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself. If you're going to keep dancing in circles around that, you can dance alone.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 8, 2022 0:07:28 GMT
And so if you read Aquinas, he says everything has a cause external to itself, so then if you think the first cause does not you have excluded it from your rule. You have therefore declared a rule and then declared an exemption which belies the logic of the rule. I just responded to that. Here it is again with the relevant part in bold: The premise of the argument isn't that everything has to have a cause; it's that everything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself. If you're going to keep dancing in circles around that, you can dance alone. Whatever way you do it, you are special pleading for your first cause, everything else is presumed to begin at some point, but not your special first cause. The argument is well known and well flawed no matter how you phrase it, which is why I offered you an alternative that allows you to have your rule and also an exception to it. honestuniverse.com/2012/10/04/problems-with-the-first-cause-argument/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 8, 2022 0:11:25 GMT
I just responded to that. Here it is again with the relevant part in bold: The premise of the argument isn't that everything has to have a cause; it's that everything that begins to exist has a cause other than itself. If you're going to keep dancing in circles around that, you can dance alone. Whatever way you do it, you are special pleading for your first cause, everything else is presumed to begin at some point, but not your special first cause. The argument is well known and well flawed no matter how you phrase it, which is why I offered you an alternative that allows you to have your rule and also an exception to it. honestuniverse.com/2012/10/04/problems-with-the-first-cause-argument/ I agree there are problems with the way you present it, but that's by design.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 8, 2022 0:15:06 GMT
Whatever way you do it, you are special pleading for your first cause, everything else is presumed to begin at some point, but not your special first cause. The argument is well known and well flawed no matter how you phrase it, which is why I offered you an alternative that allows you to have your rule and also an exception to it. honestuniverse.com/2012/10/04/problems-with-the-first-cause-argument/I agree there are problems with the way you present it, but that's by design. So you agree that the argument is flawed? Or are you suggesting that somehow I am presenting your argument in a flawed way?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 8, 2022 0:24:18 GMT
I agree there are problems with the way you present it, but that's by design. So you agree that the argument is flawed? Or are you suggesting that somehow I am presenting your argument in a flawed way? I agree that your version of the argument is flawed, but that's how straw men work. Need a match?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 8, 2022 0:48:36 GMT
So you agree that the argument is flawed? Or are you suggesting that somehow I am presenting your argument in a flawed way? I agree that your version of the argument is flawed, but that's how straw men work. Need a match? you have yet to present an argument that does not share the standard flaw of the first cause argument, either way you have set up a rule that everything must follow and then exempted your special case from that rule. At any rate, I feel like you are not really understanding what I am writing and I find you super prickly when you respond, I sometimes come here because I genuinely want a respectful conversation around religion, perhaps my approach is flawed however I find that you put me off every time we engage.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 8, 2022 0:57:47 GMT
I agree that your version of the argument is flawed, but that's how straw men work. Need a match? you have yet to present an argument that does not share the standard flaw of the first cause argument, either way you have set up a rule that everything must follow and then exempted your special case from that rule. At any rate, I feel like you are not really understanding what I am writing and I find you super prickly when you respond, I sometimes come here because I genuinely want a respectful conversation around religion, perhaps my approach is flawed however I find that you put me off every time we engage. The premise is that everything that comes into existence must have a cause, but you keep saying the premise is that everything must have a cause. So, yeah, you're presenting the argument in a flawed way. I don't know how many different ways I can say it, but if you don't like the tone of one of them, feel free to ignore it and respond to one that doesn't bend you. I said yours was a common mistake, which, IMO, should have been sufficient, but since it wasn't, I explained the argument in a completely objective manner, and quoted Aquinas himself, but that didn't work, either. At some point, I'm just going to laugh and you're going to make that the issue. Tell you what, I'll just do us both a favor by thanking you for the chat and getting off this merry-go-around of yours where prickliness precludes further discussion of the actual subject.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 9, 2022 20:11:17 GMT
you have yet to present an argument that does not share the standard flaw of the first cause argument, either way you have set up a rule that everything must follow and then exempted your special case from that rule. At any rate, I feel like you are not really understanding what I am writing and I find you super prickly when you respond, I sometimes come here because I genuinely want a respectful conversation around religion, perhaps my approach is flawed however I find that you put me off every time we engage. The premise is that everything that comes into existence must have a cause, but you keep saying the premise is that everything must have a cause. So, yeah, you're presenting the argument in a flawed way. I don't know how many different ways I can say it, but if you don't like the tone of one of them, feel free to ignore it and respond to one that doesn't bend you. I said yours was a common mistake, which, IMO, should have been sufficient, but since it wasn't, I explained the argument in a completely objective manner, and quoted Aquinas himself, but that didn't work, either. At some point, I'm just going to laugh and you're going to make that the issue. Tell you what, I'll just do us both a favor by thanking you for the chat and getting off this merry-go-around of yours where prickliness precludes further discussion of the actual subject. I am gonna hate my self for this. What is the effective difference in your mind between saying that everything must have a cause and everything that comes into existence must have a cause? The way I see it you are simply saying that the one thing you pick never came into existence and so never needed a cause, however this is still special pleading I would argue as EVERYTHING ELSE has come into existence. Essentially the way I am reading your argument (and please dont say Aquinas' argument, you are clearly the person presenting the argument here, in the context of this conversation it's your argument) is that you have a rule for everything, being it came into being and so therefore must have had a cause, except there is this one thing that never had to come into being and so does not have a cause. I honestly (and I am not trying to get into a semantic argument, I genuinely do not see the difference) do not see the difference, you are simply instead of saying everything has a cause, that everything starts, you still remove the claim for a special case. EDIT This seems pretty clear that your argument is that everything has a cause, and that your first cause is uncaused in other words does not have a cause.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2022 21:55:35 GMT
you are simply instead of saying everything has a cause, that everything starts, you still remove the claim for a special case. The claim isn't that everything has a cause or that everything starts, so nothing is being removed. I'm not sure why Aquinas is credited with it, as it seems to me he was merely stating the obvious that anyone with a functioning brain can reason on their own Essentially the way I am reading your argument (and please dont say Aquinas' argument, you are clearly the person presenting the argument here, in the context of this conversation it's your argument) Thanks for the chat.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 10, 2022 23:58:24 GMT
you are simply instead of saying everything has a cause, that everything starts, you still remove the claim for a special case. The claim isn't that everything has a cause or that everything starts, so nothing is being removed. I'm not sure why Aquinas is credited with it, as it seems to me he was merely stating the obvious that anyone with a functioning brain can reason on their own Thanks for the chat. Well I tried
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 24, 2022 1:26:15 GMT
Just out of curiosity, are you interpreting Admins argument to be one supportive of the existence of a god? It does not support the existence of a god, the concept can explain the idea of a god though. I know it doesn’t support the existence of a god; that’s not what I asked you. I was asking do you think that’s what Admin is trying to do by using this argument?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 26, 2022 16:04:18 GMT
It does not support the existence of a god, the concept can explain the idea of a god though. I know it doesn’t support the existence of a god; that’s not what I asked you. I was asking do you think that’s what Admin is trying to do by using this argument? I a quietly confident that the only person who has any clue what admin is trying to do is admin.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 26, 2022 17:15:26 GMT
I know it doesn’t support the existence of a god; that’s not what I asked you. I was asking do you think that’s what Admin is trying to do by using this argument? I am quietly confident that the only person who has any clue what admin is trying to do is admin. Touche!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 27, 2022 21:30:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 27, 2022 21:51:16 GMT
|
|