Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, and it fails just as badly when you do that. In fact both of you admit to an irrational belief when you use the projection in that argument.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Examining the evidence there is of God
There is a failure indeed, I do not see it is proven that it is our stance that fails.
Regards Tony
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is not my problem. No one can force you to reason rationally.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok, with respect to simultaneous causation you said this
Why can't cause and effect be simultaneous? Which is which? Which one caused the other? How do we decide that that they aren't coincidence (each has its own prior cause) or both the effect of the same prior cause?
In the context of this conversation we where talking about the “first cause”………. You said (or implied) that you can´t have a “cause” prior to the first moment of time. (Implying that if there was a first moment it didn’t had a cause)
I asked a rhetorical question, “why can´t the first cause be simultaneous”
You responded this:
Why can't cause and effect be simultaneous? Which is which? Which one caused the other? How do we decide that that they aren't coincidence (each has its own prior cause) or both the effect of the same prior cause?
So my answer to your claim would be
Cause if just something that contribute to an outcome (the effect) ..... so which is wchis in simultanous causation? well if X can produce Y and Y can´t produce X then X would be the cause. imagine a heavy ball resting in a soft couch, causing a curvature .
You would know that the ball is causing the curvature, (rather than the curvature causing the ball) because you know that balls cause curvatures, and that curvatures don’t cause balls. …………… so assuming for example a ball in a couch from infinity past the curvature would also be there from infinity past (therefore both would be simulators) but you would still know that the ball is causing the curvature.
My point is that you don’t need to observe and show that the ball is prior to the curvature in order to know wich is the cause and which is the effect.
Besides I think there are many likely examples of simultaneous cause and effect
1 quantum entanglement: according to some interpretations of QM observing particle A (cause) would automatically collapse particle B (effect)
2 you winning a race: If you cross the line before your competitors (Cuase) you will win he race (Effect)…..(cause an effect are simulnaous)
3 cutting something in 2 parts: if you cut a circle in 2 pars (cause) you will get 2 semi circles (effect)…………cause and effect are simultanous
Etc. there are many examples of cause and effect that seem to be simultanous
Besides, the only reason for why the cause usually comes before the effect is because the speed of light is limited….. but that is a physical constrain that wouldn’t affect God, nor any other hypothetical “first cause”
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok, but how would you reply to his argument?......or is he also being disrespectful and doesn’t deserves an answer?
In my opinion he made a good point
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That was all the response needed. He needs to make a better argument.
Ancient Soul
The Spiritual Universe
That's the thing that really stood out for me, all the confusion in them. Well, that and the lack of anything truly spiritual to offer in any of them.
On the flip side, most of my life I've kept my spiritual differences secret, only opening up a bit on the Internet. And was amazed that when I touched base with the rare few others who've had similar spiritual experiences and abilities, as we were all pretty much in accord on the attributes of God, what the Spiritual Universe (What most call Heaven.) is like, and other spiritual matters.
The vast majority would fall into the last category.
Really? Over 99.99% of all species that have existed over billions of years have gone extinct. What is intelligent about that?
So it took evolution billions of years just so humans could exist for the last 200K years? That includes the dinosaurs evolving and going extinct. That includes some humans having genetic defects and genetic diseases that are fatal to both children and young adults. I want to know what is inteligent about that? If evolution was going to take billions of years to get to humans why aren't humans more perfect?
No gods are known to exist, so irrelevant.
You get to make a comment using a device connected to a WWW.
The human species is also very ancient.
Regards Tony
To you, not me and a actually a majority of humanity. God is not dead, even if a few try to make that a possibility.
All the best with life.
Regards Tony
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Isn't it amazing how believers within a religion don't see any confusion or contradictions.
I disagree. How do we know that curvatures don't cause balls? Why would we assume the ball was the cause of the curvature unless we had prior experience where balls exist before the curvatures they cause when set down on soft surfaces? My point remains that to call something a cause, it must precede what we call its effect. One's grandparents caused his parents (effect), who were the cause of him. How do we know that they all didn't spring into existence simultaneously? What if they did? Would it make sense to call any of them the cause of any of the rest of them?
Let me summarize. The universe exists. I can conceive of four logical possibilities for why that is. With two of them, the universe is uncaused: it either always existed or came into being uncaused. The other two have a prior source for the universe. One has that source conscious (intelligent designer) and the other an unconscious substance like a multiverse. Leroy and I had been discussing the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), which says that the universe has a cause, since the universe had a beginning and everything that has a beginning has a cause. Both of those premises are challenged by the first two possibilities. The first premise is wrong if the universe has always existed, and the second is wrong if it came into being uncaused. We were going in a circle as you and I are now, and so, to move forward, I stipulated to the premises of the KCA and agreed to assume the universe had a cause.
What I have been saying to you is that it is special pleading to insist that the existence of universe needs a source, but a deity does not.
You believe that a god exists, a conscious tri-omni deity. Let's subject it to the same analysis as the universe. Why is there a god? You may recall that I had mentioned another creationist poster being unwilling to consider that question. He dismissed it with an ad lapidem fallacy - the question was absurd, he said. I mentioned that as an example of a theist being unwilling or unable to even think about his god not existing, and I suggested that this would normally be due to either fear of offending the god with his doubt or fear of allowing himself to take what he considers the first step toward atheism. As long as he never entertains such thoughts, his salvation is secure in hs estimation.
Yes, and as an empiricist, I consider that a good enough reason to be an agnostic atheist.
That's close but not quite right. The agnostic atheist will live as if no such thing exists until he has a reason to believe otherwise but does not assume that this god does not exist.
The message is very human sounding, and I believe that you know that, or else you would have produced text that was not human sounding as a rebuttal.
What knowledge? The flowery prose admonishing people to be pious and cooperative? Where did that come from? The same place this post comes from - human imagination.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
The key is the word "eternal".
An eternal thing does not need "a source", so do you think that the material universe is eternal .. or not?
leroy
Well-Known Member
Because you know the properties of the ball and the properties of curvatures, this is why you can know that the ball is the cause and the curvature the effect.
If you enter to a room and simply observe a ball resting on the couch, you would know that the ball is the cause of the curvature, even if you didn’t observe the ball coming in to existence before the curvature. ……… why because you can still look at the ball , analyses it´s characteristics and conclude that the ball has the “power” to cause curvatures.
I would also add that “not knowing” which is which doesn’t invalidates the possibility of simultaneous causation, that would simply show that humans have a limitation on their knowledge ………. So for these reasons I think your objection is bad
1 yes we can know which is which
2 even if you cant know that would simply prove a limitation to human knowledge but it would show that the idea of simultaneous cause and effect is incoherent or impossible
Sure, in that specific example perhaps the cause necessarily comes before the effect.
I am not saying that the cause is always simultaneous to the effect, I am just saying that it is a possibility
leroy
Well-Known Member
Agree that is not special pleading, you are suggesting that the source (God) has relevant properties that the universe lacks
you are not making an arbitrary exception
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe what you have done with evidence is like saying 2 + 2 does not equal 4 because it does not fit your criteria which is unnaturally biased.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, that would be you. If you want to claim to have evidence you have a few options. You could use an existing definition. Such as the definition of scientific evidence. That would be the most reasonable and reliable evidence to use, but you probably know that you do not have any evidence that rises to that level. Or you could try to define what you mean by evidence yourself. You would need a working definition. That would mean that people would be able to judge whether or not something was evidence regardless of one's personal beliefs. For example the Bible is not evidence since others do not accept it. You would first have to prove that the Bible is reliable and that does not appear to be the case.
Let's get started. What sort of evidence do you plan to use?
It is humans God is communicating with, through a selected human Messenger, so how would you like them to speak?
The Word was given in Arabic and Persian. This is also great evidence, as it is written in such away that it is new and thought provoking.
It is a proof, we are challenged to produce words that match them.
Regards Tony
This statement just indicates an entire ignorance of the given evidence and the subject matter of religious scriptures.
I do hold hope for justice, but see none from your pen at this time.
Regards Tony
I have no test, observation, or algorithm to decide the matter, so I remain agnostic about it. If it is, there is no need for a creator.
I know that in time, balls exist before the curvature they cause when set down. If the ball and the curvature are both eternal, neither caused the other. Which of these is cause and which is effect? I'm not referring to cause of motion, but cause of existence.
Yes, and I would know that the ball existed before the curvature. But what if they were both eternal?
There is no possibility of simultaneous causation, just as there is no possibility of a married bachelor. The phrase cause-and-effect means that one thing preceded the other, just as married means not unmarried. Causing an effect is an action, and actions take place over time. Look at this discussion. Look at these words - create, bring about, next one, result, outcome, etc.. Those all imply a before and an after state. I believe we discussed that when discussing exist, think, and act - three things gods are said to do, all implying a before and an after state. The faithful aren't generally interested in such ideas, since they seem to need that these things not be the case:
Like married bachelors? I guess they're possible, too. After all, nobody knows everything, right? And with God, all things are possible except for the impossible things like tolerating sin or forgiving it without a blood sacrifice. And in heaven, anything is possible since it's said to be immaterial. When you're immaterial, up gets to be down and effect can precede cause. It's as possible as them being simultaneous if one has more imagination than rigor and words like cause and effect don't actually have to mean anything, where truth is anything one wants it to be.
This is the kind of thinking one leaves behind when he masters critical thinking. He becomes analytical. He becomes more precise and his thinking more coherent, like a mathematician or engineer.
If you want me to believe that they are channeling a god rather than having delusions, I need the words to contain something that I couldn't have written myself.
No, the statement is correct. If it weren't, you could rebut it rather than have to dismiss it out of hand instead.