Samuel Clarke: Reasons for God (reject, God)

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Godlike

Relax, it was just a turn of phrase.

I was adding rhetorical flourish.

Originally Posted by Godlike

That's circular logic.

Actually, it's a valid argument. The logic is correct.

Originally Posted by Godlike

You're argument is inconsistent: are you a determinist or not, Bren? Because first you deny Cause-and-Effect then you use it to determine the non-existence of Deity. Which is it? One cannot have both...

Cause and effect isn't true. That's actually what Anquinas's 'prime mover' argument establishes as simply logically true - not every effect requires a cause. Is the logic of cause and effect necessary for determinism?

Originally Posted by Godlike

Causation is the truth that describes Creation and requires Time: a self-subsistent God does not need these things.

Either causation is the truth that describes existence or God doesn't exist. Both can't be true.

If you use "God" to mark the paradox created by the circular logic of cause and effect, I agree with that. Otherwise the problem remains, Conor: in my proof, which premise do you deny?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by PureX

You can't prove "A" because the universe exists, but has no known or discernible preceding cause.

You can't prove "B" because it's a purely subjective theoretical supposition.

And without proving "A" or "B", "C" remains unproven as well.

DING!DING!DING! Exactly.

Once one negates the first premise in order to invalidate the conclusion in this proof, it is then impossible to construct the prime mover/first cause argument for "God" because it too depends on my first premise being true. It's the ultimate Catch-22.

Like I said on the Aquinas thread, arguments like Clark's and Aquinas's only prove an inherent flaw in the logic of cause and effect. They demonstrate nothing about "god" except to the extent the word is used as a placeholder for that inherent flaw.

[Random]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Either causation is the truth that describes existence or God doesn't exist. Both can't be true. If you use "God" to mark the paradox created by the circular logic of cause and effect, I agree with that. Otherwise the problem remains, Conor: in my proof, which premise do you deny?

Your proof of what? The non-existence of God or the untruth of Causation? To be honest, I think you're seeing a mutual exclusivity here where there may be none. Anyway, I shall gracefully bow out of this thread now whilst I still have my patience. Thanks for your persepective, Dopp.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Godlike

Your proof of what? The non-existence of God or the untruth of Causation? To be honest, I think you're seeing a mutual exclusivity here where there may be none. Anyway, I shall gracefully bow out of this thread now whilst I still have my patience. Thanks for your persepective, Dopp.

If I'm following correctly Godlike, dopp was not trying to prove anything...but to show the flaw in the proof (five statements) being discussed.

The five assumptions presented can't all be logically true.

Every philosophy starts with some assumption/premise. For the rest to be logical it has to be internally consistent with the starting assumptions.

I think Dopp was just asking you what your starting assumption is, or which you don't accept.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Godlike

Your proof of what? The non-existence of God or the untruth of Causation?

Sorry, the proof I wrote for this thread. It's in #11.

1: Every "thing that exists" (z) has "a temporally preceding cause" (y).
2: "God" (x) does not have a "temporally preceding cause" (z), therefore, ...
C: "God" (x) is not a "thing that exists" (z).

The argument is logically valid. So which premise is wrong?

[Random]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Sorry, the proof I wrote for this thread. It's in #11.

1: Every "thing that exists" (z) has "a temporally preceding cause" (y).
2: "God" (x) does not have a "temporally preceding cause" (z), therefore, ...
C: "God" (x) is not a "thing that exists" (z).

The argument is logically valid.

This makes sense, yes. I kind of thought we were still debating the OP on points 3 and 5.

Your above proof is highly consistent with the Buddhist view of Causation and Karma, Dopp, and may explain some philosophical tracts which lead to nontheism, however elsewhere on this thread you have stated cause-and-effect is not true. Perhaps you can clarify this statement and suggest something to replace it in our interpretation of reality.

My understanding is that if there is no Uncaused God, and this is proved by the fact that all temporal things have preceding causes, then you throw your own argument out the window and open the door for God by denying Causation. Is this not so?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Godlike

Perhaps you can clarify this statement and suggest something to replace it in our interpretation of reality.

Sure. That the universe is an effect of some existing cause cannot be true. We can for our purposes estimate causes based on what we can observe. And those estimations will be useful to us. That's what the Nietzsche excerpt is about. I wasn't posting it as authority, but as a good explanation of how it could seem to us that every cause must have an effect.

Originally Posted by Godlike

My understanding is that if there is no Uncaused God, and this is proved by the fact that all temporal things have preceding causes, then you throw your own argument out the window and open the door for God by denying Causation. Is this not so?

You are correct, Conor. However, by knocking out the premise that every effect requires a cause, that also negates an essential premise for the prime mover/first cause logical arguments for God like Clarke's (the OP) and Aquinas's. If not every effect requires a cause, then there is no need for a first cause.

[eudaimonia]

Originally Posted by Buttons*

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

- For something to exist, there must be a reason why it does.

Why? We may need a reason for why it exists in the specific form that it has, but why must there be a reason for it to exist? This may require no explanation at all.

After all, existence cannot be "explained", since explanation implies cause, and any cause of "existence" would have to itself exist, thereby making the question impossible to answer, and invalidating the question.