03 Apr 06
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, it does not.
If the position that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of a creator, then the existence of a creator would be evidence for the creator of the creator.
How can you exclude that and induce, at the same time, that the universe must have one? It lacks coherence.
That the Universe needs an ultimate "creator" (or 'cause'😉 is surmised from the nature of the Universe as contingent. A contingent being always requires another being (necessary or contingent) to explain its existence.
The "creator" (or 'First Cause'😉 is a necessary being and so does not require (cannot require?) another being to explain its existence.
So, the question of whether the Universe has a creator is coherent; whether the creator has a meta-creator is not.
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerContingency does not require a creator, it requires a cause. Why should it be a being?
No, it does not.
That the Universe needs an ultimate "creator" (or 'cause'😉 is surmised from the nature of the Universe as contingent. A contingent being always requires another being (necessary or contingent) to explain its existence.
The "creator" (or 'First Cause'😉 is a necessary being and so does not require (cannot require?) another being t ...[text shortened]... r the Universe has a creator is coherent; whether the creator has a meta-creator is not.
The question here is that if declaring the universe as a necessary existent is sufficient or not. To replace it with another necessary existent doesn't solve the problem, it just deplaces it.
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe Universe as it is, in and of itself. Any universe that is necessary will, of course, exist. I guess some natural laws would also be necessary (though these may not be the laws that we are familiar with). If some of these laws are probabilistic (or if there is robust metaphysical randomness) then much of what we're aware of could be contingent.
The Universe as we know it? Or any universe at all?
EDIT: Are protons, electrons etc. necessary or contingent? Matter/Energy? Stars and galaxies? Planets? The Solar System?
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour experiences do not distinguish between your being contingent and necessary. All they deliver to you is that you and other material beings are temporary. Your experiences certainly don't deliver to you that the Big Bang could have not happened. It's perfectly consistent with the universe being a necessary existent that our existence be contingent (or at least some of the laws of nature be contingent).
Actually, it doesn't appear to have all the "virtues" of the theistic answer. The theistic answer begins with the common experience that material beings are contingent. We needn't have existed. The earth, Solar System, galaxies etc. needn't have existed. The Big Bang needn't have occurred. The laws of physics could've been otherwise. In all of these c ...[text shortened]... le.
That's why I asked what you meant by the "Universe" being a necessary existent.
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn order to know whether it answers the question or not you have to have an idea of what the answer might look like. There obviously is an answer out there , but whether we would make any sense of it? The theist answer of an eternal God maintains the rationality of cause and effect and also doesn't have to explain how 'something comes out of nothing' since God is not conceived as coming out of anything at all but eternally existing. This of course is incredible to think about but at least it makes more 'sense' than the other options which by definition have to break one of the basic pillars of reason and science (cause and effect). One thing is for sure , the answer is likely to be pretty damn wierd one way or the other and would probably be mindblowing. I doubt whether any rational analysis would make sense of it.
[I guess I'm asking you to shift the target in the same way that the theists do. In what manner do you shift it?
Why should anyone 'shift the target'. It achieves nothing and does not answer the question.
[
Even if there are other 'universes' or existances, even if our 'universe' sprang or was created by some other 'universe' or 'existance' or ' ...[text shortened]... as all it does is move the target.
So the answer is simple, there is no answer.[/b]
This makes me wonder why Atheists seem to place so much store by rationality and reason in searching for the ultimate truth when it's reasonable to assume that rationality itself will have to go out of the window anyway.
03 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterBecause it's practical for going about the business of living.
This makes me wonder why Atheists seem to place so much store by rationality and reason in searching for the ultimate truth when it's reasonable to assume that rationality itself will have to go out of the window anyway.
Walking is practical for getting around. We don't discard walking altogether merely because we cannot walk to the moon.
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBut if you were thinking of walking as a way of getting to the moon...? I would say time to start thinking about another mode of transport. Why do Atheists get so tetchy when we suggest that reason might just have some limitations? Rationality gets us so far , but all the way to God...? Not sure about that one....
Because it's practical for going about the business of living.
Walking is practical for getting around. We don't discard walking altogether merely because we cannot walk to the moon.
03 Apr 06
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf what you say is true, why do theists get so touchy when it is claimed that rational agents cannot believe in God, as there is insufficient evidence to justify a belief in him?
Why do Atheists get so tetchy when we suggest that reason might just have some limitations? Rationality gets us so far , but all the way to God...? Not sure about that one....
Theists can't have it both ways. Either God can be discovered through reason or he cannot. Either belief in God is consistent with rationality or it is not.
Once theists begin to appeal to evidence to justify their belief in God, they open the door to having that belief challenged on rational grounds with reason and competing evidence. On the other hand, if they never appeal to evidence to justify the belief, then they must concede that it is unjustified.
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOk . I'll pin it to the mast. God cannot be discovered by reason alone. If I say this does that then mean I am not allowed to appeal to reason at all? If I said to you that a particular bus will not take you all the way to New York does that mean I can't use buses. No theist can prove God by reason , all that can be shown is that theism is not as absurd as some Atheists like to paint it. The rest is up to God to give you some sense of his presence with you, and up to you to start looking for him.
If what you say is true, why do theists get so touchy when it is claimed that rational agents cannot believe in God, as there is insufficient evidence to justify a belief in him?
Theists can't have it both ways. Either God can be discovered through reason or he cannot. Either belief in God is consistent with rationality or it is not.
Once the ...[text shortened]... never appeal to evidence to justify the belief, then they must concede that it is unjustified.
You are also making 'all or nothing' statements when you say it's either 'consistent with rationality or not'. I would counter this by saying that God partly stands up to rational enquiry but not wholly. There needs to be a combination of things , not just reason. If I gave the impression that I could somehow 'prove' God then I apologise. I think I can show logically that strange things happen to rationality when we start thinking about the ultimate questions. That's a starting point, nothing more nothing less.
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesRational agents can and do believe in God. Some of the agents have only arrived at a god, while others have concluded that THE God is the One with whom we have to do.
On the other hand, if they never appeal to evidence to justify the belief, then they must concede that it is unjustified.
God cannot be 'discovered' by reason, in terms of anything beyond a general revelation. The character and nature of God is only available via divine revelation. While a creator of sorts is inferred by creation (with the opposing view of matter being all falling in on itself within its first few steps), getting to THE Creator is not possible through either empiricism or rationalism/reason.
Upon receipt of divine revelation, reasoning agents are able to easily reconcile any and all known facts with the truth of God's character and nature (although we usually like to call it the other way around).
Theists typically are referencing the technical definition of evidence when postulating God's existence. The so-called competing evidence is generally a matter of perspective, excepting those cases when the evidence itself is simply wrong.
03 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI don't know, certainly. My best educated guess is that they simply exist. Or, maybe there was some sort of cause which was itself the product of some sort of cause in an infinite chain.
"What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking
Atheists, how do you answer Hawking? Why is there something rather than nothing?
I know how theists answer the question. They postulate a creator, and even go so far as to postulate his motives for bringing things into existence. ast partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?
EDIT - Does the existence of things constitute at least partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?
I don't know. It certainly doesn't supply evidence for a creator that was not itself created.
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow about Super-Cool-Awesome Magic (SCAM)???
That's what it all comes down to, at least as far as this issue is involved. Either matter is god, or God is God.
SCAM is non-contingent. It is not matter, nor is it a god. In the same way a theist might claim that "God just is," we can claim that SCAM just is.
Besides, Super-Cool-Awesome Magic breathes a lot more fire than most gods I've come encountered.
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by telerionI'd say you have a long way to go in making both a relevant and reasonable argument for SCAM, whereas in the case of the God of the Bible, there exists no need for development or imagination.
How about Super-Cool-Awesome Magic (SCAM)???
SCAM is non-contingent. It is not matter, nor is it a god. In the same way a theist might claim that "God just is," we can claim that SCAM just is.
Besides, Super-Cool-Awesome Magic breathes a lot more fire than most gods I've come encountered.