Why appeals to cause and effect are no evidence of a creator god

[paarsurrey]

The simple fact is that cause and effect is not a scientific law, never was.

It was the philosophic one, in vogue in the West not very long ago. Wasn't it?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It is inescapably dishonest

"Cause and effect" was advanced by David Hume, you know. Was he dishonest?
I don't think so.

Regards

 

[metis]

The Tibetan Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard has wrongly understood the truthful fact about our G-d. Please give the claim from the scripture of the religion he believes in and the argument given by the scripture if he believes in a living scripture.
What do you understand about YHWH in this respect from Torah? Please quote from Torah with the argument given by Torah itself if it is a living book.
I respect you both and and your religions, yet we have to explore the truth.

Regards

Before he became a monk, Ricard was a well-regarded scientist in France but gave it all up to work with the Dalai Lama in India. His position is rather quite logical, which is not to say it must be correct. Also, Buddhists do not have a belief in a creator-god for various reasons, and I already gave you one.

I'm not going to get into Judaism as that doesn't directly relate to what's being discussed.

 

[Bunyip]

It was the philosophic one, in vogue in the West not very long ago. Wasn't it?

Regards

Well, it was a notion of classical physics that was disproven by the emergence of quantum physics more than a century ago.

 

[Bunyip]

"Cause and effect" was advanced by David Hume, you know. Was he dishonest?
I don't think so.

Regards

David Hume? The philosopher who died in 1776? How does an 18th century philosophers view relate to quantum physics? Are you seriously suggesting that Hume's philosophical opinion somehow trumps the findings of quantum physics?

 

[Bunyip]

LOL! I'm pretty much an "agnostic", and maybe you should look up that word to see what it means instead of inventing your own definition of even that word. I also was in science, not including my education, for just under 40 years, and I do believe I know how we operate. I taught anthropology for over 30 of those years, and have been a subscriber to Scientific American for almost 50 years now. There are many thngs I don't know, but I do know how we operate and what's an "axiom" and what isn't.

I was just going to stop this discussion on this thread with you, but now I've had enough of your juvenile trash-talk to put you on my ignore list. Grow up!

An anthropologist? And you are using that to support your beliefs on quantum physics? Gee.
No need for the tantrum. I made no juvenile trash talk, try to accept being wrong without losing your cool and throwing a fit.

You do not believe that cause and effect is an axiom, so don't get offended when other people doubt what you don't believe yourself.

 

[Gambit]

Not at all a logical relation. It is just an appeal to supernatural exception with no logical content whatsoever.

The problem is that you don't understand the difference between a logical relation and a temporal one. God is not a cause among other causes. The first cause is on an entirely different conceptual level than other causes.

 

[Bunyip]

The problem is that you don't understand the difference between a logical relation and a temporal one. God is not a cause among other causes. The first cause is on an entirely different conceptual level than other causes.

Sure, it is an exception that disproves cause and effect.
If cause and effect really was an axiom - there would be no exceptions. Having an exception means that something is not universally true.

 

[Bunyip]

The cosmological argument, unedited;

Everything except for God has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause - therefore God must exist!

 

[metis]

God is not a cause among other causes. The first cause is on an entirely different conceptual level than other causes.

But isn't this just based on the assumption that there is a creator-god?

 

[paarsurrey]

David Hume? The philosopher who died in 1776? How does an 18th century philosophers view relate to quantum physics? Are you seriously suggesting that Hume's philosophical opinion somehow trumps the findings of quantum physics?

Sorry sir,

The thread/topic is not restricted to quantum physics, an important part of the thread/topic is "evidence of a creator god ". I was expressing my thoughts on this.
I think I was on topic.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Before he became a monk, Ricard was a well-regarded scientist in France but gave it all up to work with the Dalai Lama in India. His position is rather quite logical, which is not to say it must be correct. Also, Buddhists do not have a belief in a creator-god for various reasons, and I already gave you one.

I'm not going to get into Judaism as that doesn't directly relate to what's being discussed.

Since one has read book of the Buddhist monk who belongs to Tibetan Buddhism; may I ask a little question.
Don't the Tibetan Buddhism believe in a scripture?
Any body, please.

Regards

 

[Gambit]

The cosmological argument, unedited;

Everything except for God has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause - therefore God must exist!

You need to qualify that. Everything that comes into existence must have a cause for its existence.

 

[Gambit]

But isn't this just based on the assumption that there is a creator-god?

Just curious. What's the difference between "Jewish" naturalism and secular naturalism?

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem is that you don't understand the difference between a logical relation and a temporal one. God is not a cause among other causes. The first cause is on an entirely different conceptual level than other causes.

Let's both just pretend you meant to humor me and call it a day. You can't hope for any better results by now.

 

[LuisDantas]

Since one has read book of the Buddhist monk who belongs to Tibetan Buddhism; may I ask a little question.
Don't the Tibetan Buddhism believe in a scripture?
Any body, please.

Regards

Relying too much on scripture is adharmic. And the Buddha explicitly taught not to make too much of an effort to trust the words attributed to him.

So, I would say that making a point of believing in scriptures is just not a very good habit by a Buddhist perspective.

In any case, Buddhist scriptures, far as I recall right now, don't really mention a creator god, fortunately.

 

[McBell]

You need to qualify that. Everything that comes into existence must have a cause for its existence.

Except god, right?

 

[Gambit]

Except god, right?

Right. God does not come into existence. God simply is.

 

[McBell]

Right. God does not come into existence. God simply is.

 

[Bunyip]

Sorry sir,

The thread/topic is not restricted to quantum physics, an important part of the thread/topic is "evidence of a creator god ". I was expressing my thoughts on this.
I think I was on topic.

Regards

I didn't say otherwise. I was just asking you if you think Hume's philosophical notion somehow relates to the origin of the universe.