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

[Bunyip]

Scientific progress goes on, there is no need to stop the wheel of progress. None of the founders of religions was against science.

Regards

Many of them existed long before science.

 

[Bunyip]

I believe the Bible gives the answer: "Before the mountains were born
Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land
From everlasting to everlasting you are God" (Psalm 90:2) The true God has always existed and always will.

I was asking Who made him. Wasn't it you who was arguing that a building needs a builder? Why would you make that argument if you don't believe it?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Well, you want me to take my "best shot" so here goes:

If we are adding a third option of no causality at all.. then the analogy becomes-

You see HELP written in rocks on a deserted beach with no direct evidence of anybody being there

Let me stop you right there. Assuming that the "help" word exists in such a fashion that no research or investigation into how "help" got there was necessary; or that such a wasted effort of investigation would show that there is no way that the "help" could be there through the laws of nature -- then "help" on the beach becomes the direct evidence that somebody was there!

A the waves washed them up that way (naturalistic cause)
B somebody did it (God)
C none of the above, they spontaneously appeared there for no reason whatsoever..

There are far from the only options; as I have already pointed out, the existence of "help" would demonstrate that somebody was there; and if there was no further evidence that anyone was there, that, in itself, would provide further evidence of how long ago someone was there (following natural laws of erosion, corrosion, decay, plant growth, etc which would eventually hide or destroy other evidence); and strong inferred evidence that those who were once there were either rescued, or found a way off the island on their own accord, or perished with their remains beyond the point of being located (naturally buried, decay, predators, scavengers, etc etc etc).

I don't think that would affect the rationale for God at all, because A and C are effectively identical, since both are without purpose, both are spontaneous, both rely on fluke v design. they share those same fundamental flaws.

No, A and C are not effectively identical; philosophically, religiously, scientifically, practically, any-other-illy.

For starters, if God put "help" on a beach where there was no one or no thing that required human aid, then A, B and C all share your identical fundamental flaw: all are without purpose.

AS Richard Dawkins presented in, I believe, "The God Delusion", experiments have been conducted with children in which they were presented multiple choice questions. The questions would read something like: "Why do you think flowers have a pleasant smell? (1) A result of the evolutionary change over time; (2) To attract pollination for reproduction; (3) to make the world look and smell pretty -- "Why is there a lake at the base of this mountain? (A) So that the animals have a place to get a drink of water; (B) Because that is where the rain landed; (C) Because it is at the base of the mountain and water runs downhill."

The study shows that children assigned reason and purpose to what they see in the natural world. Thus, flowers exist to beautify the world and lakes exist so that animals have a place to drink. This shows us that the thinking that everything that exists, exists for a beneficial purpose is childish thinking.

For the waves to was it up that way would be the natural causation of objects following naturalistic causes; would only serve as further evidence of the laws of motion, etc. that we observe in our world. C, on the other hand, would demonstrate compelling evidence of a principle or law or force or intelligence or something, formerly unknown by science.

BUT BACK TO "FIRST CAUSE":

First, we have the "first mover" which many believe was necessary for the Big Bang; but we go directly from a "First mover" needed to that "first mover" being God; and from there, that "first mover" being the god a particular belief believes in. Well, if a "first cause" is necessary for the big bang, this does not automatically mean that this "first mover" is a God of any sort; let alone that this "first cause" is your particular God.

There are many models to the universe; and many ideas to how the universe was born and how it will die. One theory is the cyclic theory; that the universe expands until momentum is lost, then gravity pulls the universe back together in a fixed point for it to "bang" all over again. Another is the idea (I don't remember the name of it) that basically infers that at the other end of every singularity is another universe waiting to be born. In short, we do not know; so any statement positing that they know (be it from scientists or theists or anyone else) is specifically an argument from ignorance. But at least, scientific hypothesis regarding "first cause" events of the universe are grounded in scientific understanding of physics rather than dreaming up a work of fiction.

Second, we can not see even seconds before the Big Bang; as result, we can't see before the big bang. As a result, it is in error to assume that a "first cause" is even needed to explain the beginning of the universe. For all we know, the universe is eternal (though time has little meaning within a singularity) and something or something(s) existed before the BIg Bang (the above paragraph).

So, what we're left with is this: Not only is the necessity for a "first cause" of the universe a leap in logic, but dictating what that "first cause" was with no evidence to back that up is a violation of logic.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, you want me to take my "best shot" so here goes:

I appreciate your thoughts, I think they are more interesting than someone else's video, getting a little late but I'll try to respond ..

Let me stop you right there. Assuming that the "help" word exists in such a fashion that no research or investigation into how "help" got there was necessary; or that such a wasted effort of investigation would show that there is no way that the "help" could be there through the laws of nature -- then "help" on the beach becomes the direct evidence that somebody was there!

The point of the analogy was that it grants you a naturalistic mechanism, that is perfectly capable of accounting for the observation, yet we suspect agency even when there is no direct evidence of it, because of the power of explanation. even though HELP is no less probable than any particular random arrangement of rocks right?


Similarly 10 royal flushes in a row being dealt in a casino is no less probable than any other random sequence of the same number of cards. i.e. the reason we suspect creative intelligence is not that chance is impossible, but that there is a better explanation where we permit even the slightest possibility of agency.

The common power of explanation in both analogies here is motive, purpose, intent... in the case of the beach, it's survival, in the casino it's money.

What about God? well what is greater than money and even life itself, the greatest most powerful motive a conscious being can ever have? Love

AS Richard Dawkins presented in, I believe, "The God Delusion", experiments have been conducted with children in which they were presented multiple choice questions. The questions would read something like: "Why do you think flowers have a pleasant smell? (1) A result of the evolutionary change over time; (2) To attract pollination for reproduction; (3) to make the world look and smell pretty -- "Why is there a lake at the base of this mountain? (A) So that the animals have a place to get a drink of water; (B) Because that is where the rain landed; (C) Because it is at the base of the mountain and water runs downhill."

The study shows that children assigned reason and purpose to what they see in the natural world. Thus, flowers exist to beautify the world and lakes exist so that animals have a place to drink. This shows us that the thinking that everything that exists, exists for a beneficial purpose is childish thinking.

Well I agree with the child in this case, without purpose, there would not be life, far less a place for it to drink, enjoy flowers and stay up way too late debating why!

but the fallacy works both ways, a small child takes designed objects for granted- e.g. we sleep in beds because they are comfortable.. it takes a little more critical thinking to realize the bed is comfotable only because it was designed for that specific purpose.

So too we are born into a world where we take countless staggering improbabilities, 'comforts' for granted, because 'it's just the way nature is'. So which one is the fallacy, the falsehood, depends on the ultimate nature of the universe, and the jury is still out on that.

BUT BACK TO "FIRST CAUSE":

at least, scientific hypothesis regarding "first cause" events of the universe are grounded in scientific understanding of physics rather than dreaming up a work of fiction.

They are all fiction, philosophical speculation at best, M theory, Multiverses are inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific investigation, Hawking's 'Big Crunch' explicitly touted to 'make God redundant' in his words- was debunked over a decade ago by supernova measurements, certainly enough for him to retract it himself.

The only theory re cosmogony that ever stood up to scientific scrutiny, was the one proposed by a priest, which atheists rejected and mocked as 'big bang' for what THEY complained of as the overt theistic implications of a specific creation event. The all overwhelmingly preferred static, eternal, steady state models (no creation = no creator)

Second, we can not see even seconds before the Big Bang; as result, we can't see before the big bang. As a result, it is in error to assume that a "first cause" is even needed to explain the beginning of the universe. For all we know, the universe is eternal (though time has little meaning within a singularity) and something or something(s) existed before the BIg Bang (the above paragraph).

So, what we're left with is this: Not only is the necessity for a "first cause" of the universe a leap in logic, but dictating what that "first cause" was with no evidence to back that up is a violation of logic.

I think this is as close as we come to common ground, we cannot see 'beyond' the big bang, there is no default explanation or empirical evidence for nature or God, ultimately we both have beliefs.

For both 'natural mechanism' and God we can still ask 'where did THAT come from' right? so the first cause paradox is a wash. but as the rocks in the sand.. what I think is not even, is the capacity of chance v. creative intelligence to account for the world we see around us.

appreciate the civil debate- must go zzzz

 

[rusra02]

I was asking Who made him. Wasn't it you who was arguing that a building needs a builder? Why would you make that argument if you don't believe it?

There has to be a Source of all things. That One, uniquely, has no builder. (Psalm 36:9) Except for God, all things were created and "the one who constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4) God himself is eternal and has always existed. That is what the Bible says and I believe it.

 

[Bunyip]

There has to be a Source of all things.

Why is that? Apparently your builder doesn't need one.

That One, uniquely, has no builder. (Psalm 36:9) Except for God, all things were created and "the one who constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4) God himself is eternal and has always existed. That is what the Bible says and I believe it.

 

[viole]

After reading a bit on the matter from here

Quantum Diaries

I feel that I have a more structured answer to those who claim that



In a word, nope.

Cause and effect are not even quite a matter science deals with except perhaps indirectly by studying correlations and making speculative inferences... that are supposed to be challenged whenever possible, at that.

The text I linked above tells a bit about how the otherwise remarkable David Hume really made a mistake when he spoke of cause and effect. That may or may not be part of the reason why some theists insist that there is something scientific on the notion that there might be a supernatural creator.

But the notion itself is really not even barely connected to science, let alone supported - or even supportable by it.

Cause and effect are a human bias. We live in an environment that rewarded us with better chances at survival for making that jump. Yet it often leads us to unwarranted assumptions and mistifications.

Science has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Cause and effect may be established in science, but it is far rarer and more difficult than people who claim that it is a "major principle os science" realize. It takes experimental designs to test the hypothetical relationship - something that obviously isn't really possible when dealing with claims of creation of universes. I believe it is not even possible to establish causal relationships in human sciences.

Even leaving science aside, the theistic claims about the supposed convicing power of cause and effect suffer from other major flaws. They rarely if ever attempt to demonstrate how or why their claims should be taken over alternatives such as their supposed cause being in fact the effect, or both cause and effect being actually consequences of a third factor. Quite often even the basic statistical evidence of simple correlation (which is definitely not the same thing as evidence of a causal relationship) is weak at best.

Actually, it is puzzling that theists still use such outdated arguments based on causality. They might have been good at the time of Kalam, but they are totally useless today. They just convince the already convinced one (if she has no clue of physics or suffers from serious confirmation bias).

We do not even have to invoke modern quantum mechanics to see that. That would be like killing a fly with a nuclear device. Simple 19th century thermodynamics is more than sufficient.

Cause and effect require an inherent assymetry that is no-where to be found in the fundamental laws of Nature. Without this asymmetry it would not make any sense to use different words for causes and effects, because there would be no way to distinguish between the two. So, where does this asymmetry come from? It comes from the fact that time seems to flow in one clear direction, from past into future. So, we can say a cause is what temporally precedes its effect, because we all know the difference between past and future and that the cause was there "before" its effect.

Alas, this clear time direction is not metaphysical. It is due to our Universe not being in thermal equilibrium. The day it will reach thermal equlibrium is the day past and future will look the same, together with cause and effect. Causality relationships will vanish.

Summa summarum: the difference between cause and effect is thermodynamical and, therefore, not metaphysical. It works for systems in thermal unbalance and, therefore, make sense only within an available thermodynamical context and cannot be applied to the "creation" of the thermodynamical context themselves. That would be a clear instance of the composition fallacy.

But apart from that, I am interested to know from theists how these arguments could be helpful to get a front seat in heaven. Let's take Christians for instance.

If you have enough evidence that Christ walked on water, duplicated some fish and bread, created wine ex-nihilo for a party, rose from death, etc, why do you need additional complicated scientific/philosophical arguments about causality, cosmology, moral objectivity, etc. to convince yourself and others about God?

Alternatively, if you have not enough evidence that Christ rose from death, and performed all those stunts, how do those other intellectual arguments convince you that you are believing in the right God?

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

Alternatively, if you have not enough evidence that Christ rose from death, and performed all those stunts, how do those arguments convince you that you are believing in the right God?

Jesus is neither a son of god nor G-d. The Christians are wrong there.

Regards

 

[viole]

Jesus is neither a son of god nor G-d. The Christians are wrong there.

Regards

Well, it applies to any God. What do you believe in? Zeus, Allah, Thor, universal consciousness, or Vishnu? Cannot remember, your Avatar does not say.

So, whatever God you believe in. Is the evidence that it is your God and not One the competition strong enough to not require additional metaphysics?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you have enough evidence that Christ walked on water, duplicated some fish and bread, created wine ex-nihilo for a party, rose from death, etc, why do you need additional complicated scientific/philosophical arguments about causality, cosmology, moral objectivity, etc. to convince yourself and others about God?

Alternatively, if you have not enough evidence that Christ rose from death, and performed all those stunts, how do those other intellectual arguments convince you that you are believing in the right God?

Very good questions. I'm never sure if theists are trying to convince themselves, or others.

In any case the universe is far too weird and vast to be explained by limited human notions of "God".

 

[paarsurrey]

Very good questions. I'm never sure if theists are trying to convince themselves, or others.

In any case the universe is far too weird and vast to be explained by limited human notions of "God".

The truthful religion apprises that G-d's attributes are in absolute terms, out of time/space; so your describing it limited is not factual.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

The truthful religion apprises that G-d's attributes are in absolute terms, out of time/space; so your describing it limited is not factual.

Regards

That is a point of faith, to be freely accepted or rejected as anyone sees fit.

There is not much if any reason to accept it, particularly once one has accepted how dangerous beliefs about one true God can be.

 

[McBell]

There has to be a Source of all things. That One, uniquely, has no builder.

Make up your mind.
Either there has to be a source for all things or not.