|
Post by Admin on Jun 18, 2022 0:59:29 GMT
From my first post in this thread: an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately dependsIMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5472313/threadDefine “being”. Existence. As opposed to non-existence. There isn't a lot of room to spin semantics with this one.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 18, 2022 1:11:26 GMT
As I said, regardless of how much and often and long I've studied arguments for the existence of God...I'm not even close to being convinced.
As to flimsy...that's in the eye of the beholder. A theist would say the argument from fine tuning, for example, is not flimsy and should be quite convincing. See...when they are speaking of evidence they can use arguments (reasoning) as evidence. I see it as 'evidence' a prosecutor may present. Let's say there's an apparent murder. One person is dead and it looks like they were beaten to death. One piece of evidence the prosecutor may present would be that the accused was in a room with the deceased for an hour. The room had no windows or other doors than the one that was under observation the whole time. They went in together and after an hour, one was dead due to physical damage that matched the physical damage one person can inflict on another. That isn't proof the one person killed the other, but it is one argument/line of reasoning that he might have, and the prosecutor will use that argument as evidence.
IMHO, the argument from fine tuning is pretty difficult to explain away, even if I do say so myself. Generally it is based on what the "complex initial conditions given within the big bang in which all intelligent life depends. "
It's not exactly that the universe was designed FOR life, but it questions why they are as they are and declares that if any of these many constants were any different, no life would've been possible.
What would your answer be? And that's not a question intended as a challenge, I would like to know how others address it.
The argument from fine tuning only makes sense if they don't understand evolution.
Life doesn't need the "perfect" place to exist, life adapts to the environment, not the other way around.
There are life everywhere on earth from the coldest climate to the hottest environment.
To give you an example:
The first extinction event happened about 2.45 billion years ago in the Paleoproterozoic era because too many plants started to release a deadly toxin in environment, which killed of many of the existing anaerobic species. But life adapted and today many living things are dependant on the stuff to live.
What toxin you ask? Oxygen. Yes oxygen is lethal to most animals even today, including humans. That's why we need antioxidants in order to survive.
The fine tuning I am referring to has nothing to do with evolution. It is that the universe was tuned for anything that even resembles the kind of matter and celestial bodies we observe in the night sky.
This site conjectures the outcome if the constants were off by a little bit. The first ones deal with the very structure of the universe itself. The later ones do deal with how the earth seems to be fine tuned for life Those later ones I would write off by assuming like you that a different kind of planet, if planets formed, could have resulted in life...just a lot different than the life we know. But the first few are more serious.
So, it's NOT about whether some life could have evolved on a different kind of planet, it's that nothing by hydrogen would have existed.
If gravity had been much different, either stars would not have lasted long enough for life to form, or they would not have been hot enough to explode into supernovae.
I would happily entertain explanations that either affirmed that without chemical bonds and planets or stars, life would still have arisen naturally out of some other 'material' whatever that would be, or that with different constants atoms, stars and planets would still have formed. But physicists seem to pretty much agree the some of these parameters had to be within very narrow limits for us to even have atoms at all. And what would life form from if there were no atoms?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 18, 2022 4:13:01 GMT
re: Fine Tuning, the end answer is, "So what?" And it really has everything to do with evolution. We are the story of the universe where life happened.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 18, 2022 16:29:18 GMT
Ok, you make a good point. But just to be clear...if anyone provides evidence of God...that'll be considered proof of the existence of God? And I assume since you are sure there is no evidence of God...that you've been an atheist since the age when you were able to understand the lines of reasoning people use to claim belief in God is reasonable and you were never convinced by any of it? I never made that claim. My only claim here is that colloquial speaking, evidence and proof mean the same thing. Philosophically speaking, proof only exists in math and logic. But most people are not philosophers and most do not speak in strictly philosophical terms. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a god would depend on the specific god claim (qualities associated with the god), and the standard of evidence necessary to convince the individual evaluating it. Obviously theists have a different standard than atheists. I was once a theist; now I’m an atheist. I learned through a process of critical thinking and deconstruction that what I once thought was sufficient reason for believing was not reasonable. Consequently, I became unconvinced. Not sure if that answers your question. Now I'm back to being confused. I never thought of the 'proof' I was referring to in the OP as some sort of logical or mathematical proof...just the colloquial type...ie enough evidence to convince. And my OP specifically stated that 'some ask for evidence and say there isn't any.' So that situation doesn't refer to either of us, best I can tell because YOU never made the claim that there was no evidence and I think there is evidence...just not enough to convince me. So those people, the ones saying there isn't any evidence, are asking for more than just the evidence that is available and that both of us agree exist. They (and we) are waiting for enough to convince them (us) so are thinking of/waiting for proof (colloquially) before their/our minds are changed. In both cases it would depend on 'evidence' provided, but in one case it would be inadequate evidence, ie NOT proof, colloquially, and in another case it would be sufficient to convince, ie proof, colloquially.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 18, 2022 16:47:29 GMT
re: Fine Tuning, the end answer is, "So what?" And it really has everything to do with evolution. We are the story of the universe where life happened. Do you mean evolution of the life as it originated on earth? There is more to the argument from fine tuning than can be answered by the analogy that the 'water fits perfectly into the puddle.' link It has to to with a few constants that, if just a little bit off, would have precluded even the formation of atoms and chemical bonding. And if gravity had been just a little stronger the universe would've collapsed back on itself long before life could have developed naturally or it was a little weaker, any atoms that did form would have expanded too quickly to form stars and planets. Without those (planets, stars, atoms or chemical bonds), best i can tell, NO kind of celestial bodies could have existed at all, and with no atoms or chemical, reactions resulting in long chained molecules. IOW if they are correct....the physicists who study these things...it means that there wouldn't even be any building blocks of matter to self organize into life.
This site explains it in detail.
The following is a summary.
So your response is something on the order of pure chance...one universe and we hit it lucky and don't worry about it? That probably is as good an answer as positing a god who just happened to want to create a universe with people like us in it. But I was hoping for a better explanation if there was one.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 18, 2022 17:08:24 GMT
Existence. As opposed to non-existence. There isn't a lot of room to spin semantics with this one. It seems there is for some (room)....because it seems as if some who say 'being' mean a 'person' with a mind and thoughts, intents, wishes, desires, motivation, and most of all, emotions.
If it's just 'existence' then could we rephrase the quote?
"an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused existence upon which all other existence ultimately depends"
If that is what that could mean...I have no problem with it because I'd just assert/assume that existence is natural....ie a natural underlying existence that is eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved and uncaused. But of course there's no benefit/point to believing in, worshiping, heeding, honoring, loving or trying to interact with this existence...it just is.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 18, 2022 19:10:13 GMT
re: Fine Tuning, the end answer is, "So what?" And it really has everything to do with evolution. We are the story of the universe where life happened. Do you mean evolution of the life as it originated on earth? There is more to the argument from fine tuning than can be answered by the analogy that the 'water fits perfectly into the puddle.' link It has to to with a few constants that, if just a little bit off, would have precluded even the formation of atoms and chemical bonding. And if gravity had been just a little stronger the universe would've collapsed back on itself long before life could have developed naturally or it was a little weaker, any atoms that did form would have expanded too quickly to form stars and planets. Without those (planets, stars, atoms or chemical bonds), best i can tell, NO kind of celestial bodies could have existed at all, and with no atoms or chemical, reactions resulting in long chained molecules. IOW if they are correct....the physicists who study these things...it means that there wouldn't even be any building blocks of matter to self organize into life.
This site explains it in detail.
The following is a summary.
So your response is something on the order of pure chance...one universe and we hit it lucky and don't worry about it? That probably is as good an answer as positing a god who just happened to want to create a universe with people like us in it. But I was hoping for a better explanation if there was one.
Fine Tuning is an observation, not an argument, there is no explanation other than that's how the universe evolved and because it did, it was possible for life to evolve. Substitute a house for the universe. If the builder hadn't been born when he was. If the builder hadn't pulled permits when he did. If the inspector hadn't been reasonably healthy. If the land under the development had been less stable. If a million other variables hadn't happened exactly as it did, I probably wouldn't be living in this house but that doesn't mean someone else wouldn't be living in it. Philosophy might try to find meaning in all that but there is none, it's just what happened. You can apply Fine Tuning to anything: if there had been a different salesperson, if the boss had signed checks late, if it had rained, if there had been a wreck on the freeway (or not a wreck), or any of a million things had happened differently, you might have a different car.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 19, 2022 1:17:42 GMT
Existence. As opposed to non-existence. There isn't a lot of room to spin semantics with this one. It seems there is for some (room)....because it seems as if some who say 'being' mean a 'person' with a mind and thoughts, intents, wishes, desires, motivation, and most of all, emotions.
If it's just 'existence' then could we rephrase the quote?
"an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused existence upon which all other existence ultimately depends"
If that is what that could mean...I have no problem with it because I'd just assert/assume that existence is natural....ie a natural underlying existence that is eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved and uncaused. But of course there's no benefit/point to believing in, worshiping, heeding, honoring, loving or trying to interact with this existence...it just is.
Reverence for the ultimate creator of the universe (and by extension, you) is irrelevant to its existence. Nonetheless, how do you figure it to be natural?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 19, 2022 11:49:12 GMT
It seems there is for some (room)....because it seems as if some who say 'being' mean a 'person' with a mind and thoughts, intents, wishes, desires, motivation, and most of all, emotions.
If it's just 'existence' then could we rephrase the quote?
"an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused existence upon which all other existence ultimately depends"
If that is what that could mean...I have no problem with it because I'd just assert/assume that existence is natural....ie a natural underlying existence that is eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved and uncaused. But of course there's no benefit/point to believing in, worshiping, heeding, honoring, loving or trying to interact with this existence...it just is.
Reverence for the ultimate creator of the universe (and by extension, you) is irrelevant to its existence. Nonetheless, how do you figure it to be natural? I'm not sure what the first sentence means. "Reverence" for the ultimate existence (word I replaced being with since they apparently mean the same thing) is irrelevant? I agree my reverence to or belief in the eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused existence upon which all other existence depends is irrelevant and that would apply whether it is a personal being or just an existence. And I don't figure (as in work out with reason nor calculation) that it is natural (and maybe figure was just an expression on your part), I just assume it's some aspect/arrangement of natural world we are unaware of because I see no reason to assume otherwise. IF one can solve a problem of origins with assertion and with definitions, then almost any assertion will do as long as it is defined carefully enough.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 19, 2022 22:00:46 GMT
Existence. As opposed to non-existence. There isn't a lot of room to spin semantics with this one. On the contrary, that’s exactly what your usage of the word being is designed to do, which means you have a serious problem here! You see, your first usage of “being” was a noun. You were in fact attempting to posit “a being” as an existing “thing”. But your definition of being (existence) refers to a state being, making it a verb, not a noun. Which means you’re already equivocating and you still haven’t defined the “thing” we are talking about. And this is exactly what happens when theists (usually Muslims or Christians who’ve who follow WLC) try to argue the Kalam Cosmological argument or the Argument from Contingency . These arguments fail before they even begin because of the inconsistent usage of terms like “being”. When I ask you what the term “being” refers to an you say “existence”, you’re not describing a thing, your describing a state of being. You can apply this state of being to anything known to exist, in which case you’re now talking about all existing things. Rocks exist, so by your usage a rock is also “a being”. However, rocks do not have consciousness, agency, or will. So when you talk about a necessary being, what justifies the assertion of these properties? You haven’t given a reason why your “necessary being” must have any of these properties. The universe as a conglomerate is also an existing thing, and therefore also “being” according to your logic. If the universe exists necessarily, then IT is the necessary being, meaning your paradigm leads to pantheism, not theism. That’s the problem with this “necessary being” nonsense. It is a particularly clumsy and intentionally misleading term that allows for equivocation. This ultimately leads to a convoluted, inconsistent, and potentially contradictory worldview, thus invalidating itself as a rational argument for a god.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 19, 2022 22:06:36 GMT
It seems there is for some (room)....because it seems as if some who say 'being' mean a 'person' with a mind and thoughts, intents, wishes, desires, motivation, and most of all, emotions.
If it's just 'existence' then could we rephrase the quote?
"an eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused existence upon which all other existence ultimately depends"
If that is what that could mean...I have no problem with it because I'd just assert/assume that existence is natural....ie a natural underlying existence that is eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved and uncaused. But of course there's no benefit/point to believing in, worshiping, heeding, honoring, loving or trying to interact with this existence...it just is.
Reverence for the ultimate creator of the universe (and by extension, you) is irrelevant to its existence. Nonetheless, how do you figure it to be natural? How would you figure it to be anything OTHER than natural? Isn’t that kind of begging the question? Besides the artificial, is there anything other than the natural?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 19, 2022 22:14:26 GMT
Reverence for the ultimate creator of the universe (and by extension, you) is irrelevant to its existence. Nonetheless, how do you figure it to be natural? I'm not sure what the first sentence means. "Reverence" for the ultimate existence (word I replaced being with since they apparently mean the same thing) is irrelevant? I agree my reverence to or belief in the eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused existence upon which all other existence depends is irrelevant and that would apply whether it is a personal being or just an existence. And I don't figure (as in work out with reason nor calculation) that it is natural (and maybe figure was just an expression on your part), I just assume it's some aspect/arrangement of natural world we are unaware of because I see no reason to assume otherwise. IF one can solve a problem of origins with assertion and with definitions, then almost any assertion will do as long as it is defined carefully enough. The first sentence simply means that "believing in, worshiping, heeding, honoring, loving or trying to interact with this existence" has no bearing on whether or not it actually does exist. If it exists, it's going to exist regardless of how anybody feels about it. If an object were to move without being moved, it would be considered a violation of natural law, namely Newton's 1st Law of Motion. So either that rock is supernatural, or the law is an unreliable measurement, in which case we should probably stop using natural laws to determine what is and isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 19, 2022 22:17:53 GMT
Reverence for the ultimate creator of the universe (and by extension, you) is irrelevant to its existence. Nonetheless, how do you figure it to be natural? How would you figure it to be anything OTHER than natural? Isn’t that kind of begging the question? Besides the artificial, is there anything other than the natural? I didn't say it wasn't natural. I was asking rizdek how he figured it to be. And apparently that was the wrong word to use, given the semantic argument that followed.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 19, 2022 22:24:55 GMT
Existence. As opposed to non-existence. There isn't a lot of room to spin semantics with this one. On the contrary, that’s exactly what your usage of the word being is designed to do, which means you have a serious problem here! You see, your first usage of “being” was a noun. You were in fact attempting to posit “a being” as an existing “thing”. But your definition of being (existence) refers to a state being, making it a verb, not a noun. Which means you’re already equivocating and you still haven’t defined the “thing” we are talking about. And this is exactly what happens when theists (usually Muslims or Christians who’ve who follow WLC) try to argue the Kalam Cosmological argument or the Argument from Contingency . These arguments fail before they even begin because of the inconsistent usage of terms like “being”. When I ask you what the term “being” refers to an you say “existence”, you’re not describing a thing, your describing a state of being. You can apply this state of being to anything known to exist, in which case you’re now talking about all existing things. Rocks exist, so by your usage a rock is also “a being”. However, rocks do not have consciousness, agency, or will. So when you talk about a necessary being, what justifies the assertion of these properties? You haven’t given a reason why your “necessary being” must have any of these properties. The universe as a conglomerate is also an existing thing, and therefore also “being” according to your logic. If the universe exists necessarily, then IT is the necessary being, meaning your paradigm leads to pantheism, not theism. That’s the problem with this “necessary being” nonsense. It is a particularly clumsy and intentionally misleading term that allows for equivocation. This ultimately leads to a convoluted, inconsistent, and potentially contradictory worldview, thus invalidating itself as a rational argument for a god. being (n): existence "the railroad brought many towns into being" www.google.com/search?q=definition+being I won't humor the silly semantics much longer, but I will point out that the statement is not presented as an argument for a god, but rather an "eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately depends." As I said in my first post here, you can intuitively acknowledge such an existence without calling it God. I'll be in the science room if you need me.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 19, 2022 22:58:21 GMT
On the contrary, that’s exactly what your usage of the word being is designed to do, which means you have a serious problem here! You see, your first usage of “being” was a noun. You were in fact attempting to posit “a being” as an existing “thing”. But your definition of being (existence) refers to a state being, making it a verb, not a noun. Which means you’re already equivocating and you still haven’t defined the “thing” we are talking about. And this is exactly what happens when theists (usually Muslims or Christians who’ve who follow WLC) try to argue the Kalam Cosmological argument or the Argument from Contingency . These arguments fail before they even begin because of the inconsistent usage of terms like “being”. When I ask you what the term “being” refers to an you say “existence”, you’re not describing a thing, your describing a state of being. You can apply this state of being to anything known to exist, in which case you’re now talking about all existing things. Rocks exist, so by your usage a rock is also “a being”. However, rocks do not have consciousness, agency, or will. So when you talk about a necessary being, what justifies the assertion of these properties? You haven’t given a reason why your “necessary being” must have any of these properties. The universe as a conglomerate is also an existing thing, and therefore also “being” according to your logic. If the universe exists necessarily, then IT is the necessary being, meaning your paradigm leads to pantheism, not theism. That’s the problem with this “necessary being” nonsense. It is a particularly clumsy and intentionally misleading term that allows for equivocation. This ultimately leads to a convoluted, inconsistent, and potentially contradictory worldview, thus invalidating itself as a rational argument for a god. being (n): existence "the railroad brought many towns into being" www.google.com/search?q=definition+being I won't humor the silly semantics much longer, but I will point out that the statement is not presented as an argument for a god, but rather an "eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately depends." As I said in my first post here, you can intuitively acknowledge such an existence without calling it God. I'll be in the science room if you need me. I’m all for continuing the conversation IF you actually want to have a conversation. If you wanna be a dick and get snarky, then you can stay in the “science room” while the rest of us continue without you. What’s your pleasure? 🤷🏽♂️ Conversations like this always seem to turn into dumpster fires as soon as the resident theist gets an attitude and starts running off at the mouth for no reason. Seriously, it’s so unnecessary and uncalled for and only ever leads to a lack of resolution in an otherwise interesting discussion.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 19, 2022 23:09:35 GMT
How would you figure it to be anything OTHER than natural? Isn’t that kind of begging the question? Besides the artificial, is there anything other than the natural? I didn't say it wasn't natural. I was asking rizdek how he figured it to be. And apparently that was the wrong word to use, given the semantic argument that followed. the statement is not presented as an argument for a god, but rather an "eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, uncaused being upon which all other existence ultimately depends." As I said in my first post here, you can intuitively acknowledge such an existence without calling it God. The question itself implies an alternative. This is a direct dichotomy: EITHER the hypothetical necessary being is natural OR it isn’t. Since the natural accounts for everything known to exist (beyond the artificial), that is the logical starting point. This position requires no further justification UNTIL someone can present an alternative that can be examined empirically or rationally. Regarding the argument - it IS an argument for God, and in fact a very common one. It’s the only reason the statement exists! It’s literally an argument for a god because that is the philosophical definition of God in classical theology. Yes, you can “call it” whatever you want, but the “being” that we’re talking about is the definition of god in most contexts. So why call it something other than what it is? Calling it “something else” doesn’t address the substance of the question. The part about intuitive acknowledgment is irrelevant. We ought not acknowledge anything that isn’t rationally justified, and we certainly shouldn’t be doing it by intuition (which can be wrong). You have to actually define the “being” in question with properties that can be tested for and then make an argument for its necessity. Simply asserting a necessary being isn’t an argument, it’s an assertion! EITHER there is a necessary being (that is something other than the universe) OR there isn’t. What we don’t have yet is an argument for why there is! So far, the only thing that we have evidence of (and therefore a justified acknowledgment of) is that the universe exists! It may exist necessarily, but we have no way of testing this hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 20, 2022 0:01:36 GMT
captainbryce - So we're not arguing semantics anymore? Cool. Maybe now we can indeed have an interesting discussion after I address what seems a major complaint of yours: the science room comment. It was intended to be playful while at the same time a subtle nudge to get back to, well, science. I guess it did come across as a bit snarky. My apologies. The statement is really just the First Cause argument. It's not an assertion to be proved; it's a conclusion. The starting point is your existence, and it's essentially based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If nothing else, it is completely and utterly logical and rational, and it's supported by natural laws and physics as we know them. Acknowledging a First Cause is not an acknowledgment of a god, and personally, I don't think the argument necessarily proves the existence of a god, but as Peter Kreeft once put it, "it's too thick a slice of God for atheism to digest." I would propose that as a (if not the) reason so many of these discussions turn into semantic arguments.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 20, 2022 1:51:24 GMT
captainbryce - So we're not arguing semantics anymore? Cool. Maybe now we can indeed have an interesting discussion after I address what seems a major complaint of yours: the science room comment. It was intended to be playful while at the same time a subtle nudge to get back to, well, science. I guess it did come across as a bit snarky. My apologies. The statement is really just the First Cause argument. It's not an assertion to be proved; it's a conclusion. The starting point is your existence, and it's essentially based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If nothing else, it is completely and utterly logical and rational, and it's supported by natural laws and physics as we know them. Acknowledging a First Cause is not an acknowledgment of a god, and personally, I don't think the argument necessarily proves the existence of a god, but as Peter Kreeft once put it, "it's too thick a slice of God for atheism to digest." I would propose that as a (if not the) reason so many of these discussions turn into semantic arguments. I do not believe the Principle of Sufficient Reason logically leads to the conclusion of a “first cause”. Actually, I believe it’s a non-sequitur. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (which I reject by the way, but even if I accepted it) only leads to everything having a cause. To assert a “first cause” would violate that principle, as the first cause (which by definition does NOT have a cause) is exempted only by special pleading. So I don’t find it to be a logical argument.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 20, 2022 2:35:53 GMT
captainbryce - So we're not arguing semantics anymore? Cool. Maybe now we can indeed have an interesting discussion after I address what seems a major complaint of yours: the science room comment. It was intended to be playful while at the same time a subtle nudge to get back to, well, science. I guess it did come across as a bit snarky. My apologies. The statement is really just the First Cause argument. It's not an assertion to be proved; it's a conclusion. The starting point is your existence, and it's essentially based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If nothing else, it is completely and utterly logical and rational, and it's supported by natural laws and physics as we know them. Acknowledging a First Cause is not an acknowledgment of a god, and personally, I don't think the argument necessarily proves the existence of a god, but as Peter Kreeft once put it, "it's too thick a slice of God for atheism to digest." I would propose that as a (if not the) reason so many of these discussions turn into semantic arguments. I do not believe the Principle of Sufficient Reason logically leads to the conclusion of a “first cause”. Actually, I believe it’s a non-sequitur. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (which I reject by the way, but even if I accepted it) only leads to everything having a cause. To assert a “first cause” would violate that principle, as the first cause (which by definition does NOT have a cause) is exempted only by special pleading. So I don’t find it to be a logical argument. It's not special pleading. The statement can be applied to the universe itself, which, after all is said and done, an atheist must do just to dispute the argument. Problem is, one must also betray the very science behind which they stand, and they do so with speculations of infinite material regression, spontaneous creation, alternate universes, dimensions that house four-sided triangles, and the bizarre notion that nothing is something.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 20, 2022 16:28:09 GMT
It's not special pleading. The statement can be applied to the universe itself How do you know that? What is the rational justification for applying the statement to the universe itself? Also (to my previous point), that still only gets you to a “cause”, not necessarily a “first cause”. Even if you apply the statement to the universe itself, it still cannot have a “first cause” because according to the principal, whatever caused the universe would also have to have a cause. If you say it doesn’t, then that is special pleading! I’m not convinced that the universe had to have a cause at all, but it’s your argument. Therefore YOU need to resolve that internal inconsistency in order for this to be a sound argument. Whether one is an atheist or a theist is completely irrelevant. There are atheists who believe in a first cause and there are theists who reject one. One thing is not necessarily related to the other. How do you figure? What is it about my position (as an atheist) that is contradictory to science? I think you are strawmanning atheism right now because you don’t have a rational foundation for your position. Atheism necessitates none of these things.
|
|