The Problem With Theistic Arguments

[Kenny]

What makes you think that there must be an explanation for the universe?

Because there is always a cause and effect.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Because there is always a cause and effect.

Who/what caused God then?

 

[Kenny]

Who/what caused God then?

God is spiritual... not physical. We are talking about physical laws of cause and effect. Different dimensions, different laws.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

God is spiritual... not physical. We are talking about physical laws of cause and effect. Different dimensions, different laws.

What makes you think that a physical law of cause and effect exists and applies to the universe as a whole rather than just its parts?

 

[PureX]

Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, etc. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all. After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.

It's because we can ask, that we need an answer. "God" is the term most humans apply to those 'unanswered/unanswerable answers'. Faith in God is how we trust that the answers are there, and are wise beyond our cognition, even though we don't know this to be so.

God is not so much about explaining, as trusting that there is an explanation. RELIGIONS sometimes get confused about this, and start trying to explain the unexplainable, and answer the unanswerable for people who are willing to accept fantasies for answers. But that's not theism. That's religion.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It's because we can ask, that we need an answer. "God" is the term most humans apply to those 'unanswered/unanswerable answers'.

(1) Why does every question that can be asked need an answer?

(2) So, when ancients thought the sunrise was a god riding his chariot across the sky, was that a reasonable answer for that unanswered question at the time?

 

[Kenny]

What makes you think that a physical law of cause and effect exists and applies to the universe as a whole rather than just its parts?

Well... think of it this way... physical laws says "stand on water" and you sink. Spiritual laws are more along the lines of "If you have faith, Peter, just walk to where I am at on the water".

That might be too far of a stretch for some, so a different example.

Jesus curses the fig tree.... natural course the tree dies from the leaves downward, spiritually it died from the roots upward.

Or...

A leper is leprous one moment and totally healed the next.

All have the same principle

Of course, there are modern day examples too... these are just examples during Jesus time.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Well... think of it this way... physical laws says "stand on water" and you sink. Spiritual laws are more along the lines of "If you have faith, Peter, just walk to where I am at on the water".

That might be too far of a stretch for some, so a different example.

Jesus curses the fig tree.... natural course the tree dies from the leaves downward, spiritually it died from the roots upward.

Or...

A leper is leprous one moment and totally healed the next.

All have the same principle

Of course, there are modern day examples too... these are just examples during Jesus time.

I don't really see how any of that is relevant. You asserted that the universe must have a cause due to "physical laws of cause and effect" but you haven't provided any evidence that these "laws of cause and effect" apply to the universe.

 

[Heyo]

Pretty much every theistic argument I've encountered has had essentially the same structure, namely, "God is necessary to explain X." X can be a wide variety of things: the universe, the apparent design in living things, the existence of logical or mathematical truths, the existence of moral truths, the existence of beauty, the existence of love, the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe, etc. But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all. After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place. There is no reason to assert the existence of an unexplained god to explain anything. It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.

Interesting perspective but by far not complete. There are other arguments that don't belong to the Aristotelian group of "goddidit" explanation. The ontological argument is different, Pascals wager doesn't argue for gods existence at all and arguments from personal experience lay somewhere in between.
But I give you that all "argument from X" are essentially the same and all have the same weaknesses. 1. They lead to gods of the gaps. 2. They rest on special pleading. 3. They only lead to a deos.
And they often don't explain anything at all, they just work as a stumbling block for further questions. It is not, as you argue, that X doesn't need an explanation. Many things that were explained by goddidit could later be better explained by a natural mechanism. Goddidit doesn't give a mechanism.

 

[Kenny]

I don't really see how any of that is relevant. You asserted that the universe must have a cause due to "physical laws of cause and effect" but you haven't provided any evidence that these "laws of cause and effect" apply to the universe.

Simple physics? Simple biology? Sperm meets egg... something happens? H2 meets O and you get water?

Can you give me an example of no cause and effect?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Simple physics? Simple biology? Sperm meets egg... something happens? H2 meets O and you get water?

Can you give me an example of no cause and effect?

All of those things are examples of the law of cause and effect applying to components of the universe. But that is no reason to assume that the same law applies to the entire universe (the combination of all components). That's the fallacy of composition. It seems that you're saying, because all of the parts of the universe that we observe have a cause, then the universe must have had a cause. But this is the same fallacious reasoning that could be used to argue "All humans have a mother, therefore, the human race has a mother" which is obviously false.

 

[Kenny]

All of those things are examples of the law of cause and effect applying to components of the universe. But that is no reason to assume that the same law applies to the entire universe (the combination of all components). That's the fallacy of composition. It seems that you're saying, because all of the parts of the universe that we observe have a cause, then the universe must have had a cause. But this is the same fallacious reasoning that could be used to argue "All humans have a mother, therefore, the human race has a mother" which is obviously false.

Is there a scientists that offers a different viewpoint? I noticed you couldn't give me an example of how I was wrong.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Is there a scientists that offers a different viewpoint? I noticed you couldn't give me an example of how I was wrong.

Every human has a mother does not imply the human race has a mother.

In the same way, every part of the universe has a cause does not imply the universe has a cause.

It's a huge leap to assume the "laws" that apply to parts of the universe also apply to the whole.

 

[Kenny]

Every human has a mother does not imply the human race has a mother.

In the same way, every part of the universe has a cause does not imply the universe has a cause.

It's a huge leap to assume the "laws" that apply to parts of the universe also apply to the whole.

So... you have a position but no support and no scientist that would support your position.

But, we know that scientists are seeking a cause for the universe.

 

[rational experiences]

Science as a natural spiritual male life/body and mind was existing first before he invented science...to force unnatural change.

And he lost his original spiritual life and mind psyche to AI machine owned radiation levels transmitting back to his life.....as he chose it. AI effect, self possession, as a destroyer mentality.

Claiming by causes....extra radiation first known science male observation...heated radiation expands the cold bodies that exist already owned and formed and evolved in the state of cold.

For that is the only historic information that his science self is possessed by today...fake information.

Science then had to explain to science as a spiritual philosophy....not as, I will advise you to do it again....when he cannot do it again, he already caused it.

The natural science aware statement said God was ended as stone in spatial pressure and zero 0. If you change the face of God, then you lose God.

Then said in the atmospheric awareness....the spirit movement on the face of the deep (space), the spirit (gas) of God (the stone released history immaculate), hot light gases (natural light) and cold gases (clear cold night time gases) move on the face of the deep and water (oxygen and water microbial mass used to cool).

We live owning oxygen and water microbial mass our owned selves.

And that higher state said O pi as a round spirit movement on the face of water.

By O existing formed.....light gases burning back to a carbon point O with . burning in it falls out into a spiral fall. Light moves from O . into - rib into fall of G spiral back into cooling O. Highest state of God he said is Pi O, never change it.

No says the occult self, I will copy what the atmosphere demonstrates to my psyche.

Yet science already caused Pi O to fall out into PHI by their science maths reasoning, a human thinking....so that pi O, changed...and G O D, the movement of light changed, and water split off the ground mass.

Life got changed by that event and we became less than ourselves...for the atmosphere UFO irradiated for science to own change of the GOD STONE fused cold radiation held body in space....the nothing fused state could be forced manipulated.

So half of our water mass was removed to BECOME with G O D...why you see human and animal images....who were using that water vibration mass at the ground in the CLOUD mass...to form a larger cloud mass for cooling the atmosphere.

Meanwhile on the ground D PHI is cooled before it reaches the ground...lucky for us G O D saved us by water evaporation cooling conditions.

So the D EVI L falling of the wavelengths was stopped. Life however still gets attacked.

Now does that review for a Satanist scientist own your fake mind claim that PHI is a devil..….or do you ignore the relevant atmospheric teaching that said G O D saved us....by cooling above us also....as part of that reaction cause?

Or do you just want to remain as ignorant as you are ignoring why science taught about the G O D reactive causes.....stating and so never change the Earth fusion ever again?

Do you really think all of those studies and sacrificed lives held no meaning whatsoever?

Yes would be his Satanic reply, I care less about who I destroy or harm....my mentality is a Destroyer.....why you were all taught about him.

 

[viole]

Simple physics? Simple biology? Sperm meets egg... something happens? H2 meets O and you get water?

Can you give me an example of no cause and effect?

The Universe as a whole might have no cause. As a matter of fact, everything might be uncaused, if we analyse it carefully.

But let's keep it simple, by forgetting for a second that causation might not even exist, because:

1) QM sets serious limits to the concept of causation itself
2) Relativity works best with an ontology of time in which there is no time flow. And I will like to see a definition of causality without real time flow
3) Even classically causality becomes very fuzzy, if not utter nonsensical at microscopic scale, since it crucially depends on the direction of time

your only evidence is based on what populates the Universe. It is epistemic evidence, ergo not a logical necessity.

It would be like saying: look! all balls in that box are red, ergo the box must be red, too.

So, transferring the properties of the elements of a set to the set itself, is a logical non sequitur.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

(1) Why does every question that can be asked need an answer?

Because we are human. Humans survive and thrive by understanding their environment. When we encounter aspects of our environment that we don't understand, we feel vulnerable, and frightened.

(2) So, when ancients thought the sunrise was a god riding his chariot across the sky, was that a reasonable answer for that unanswered question at the time?

It was a way of feeling like they understood something that they did not understand. A way of coping with their vulnerability. We humans are not good at letting the mysteries be. It's the same reason scientists invent theories of existential physics, today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I don't find any form of this argument to be convincing, because I don't see any reason why any of these things need to be explained at all.

...and even where an explanation is indeed required / needed... the "god dun it" claim never actually explains it either.

Every single one of these arguments uses at least one and most of the time multiple logical fallacies to "reach" its conclusion that "god dun it". The most common ones would be assumed conclusions / question begging, arguments from ignorance and unsupported premises.

But I've also seen those that use circular reasoning, special pleading, etc

All these apologetic arguments actually would make a good pop-quiz / exercise where the assignment is "spot, name and explain the logical fallacy!"

After all, theists accept God as a being whose existence needs no explanation. If you are attempting to explain the existence of something with a being whose existence is by definition unexplainable, then you've arrived back at the same problem you were trying to solve in the first place

Yep!
Another common way of expressing this is "You can't explain a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery!"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You assert that God is unexplained, but you have no proof of this.

What? You use that copout all the time. "Where's your proof of..."

The proof of god being unexplained, is the complete absense of an explanation of said god.

Though actually, theologians do have explanations for the nature of God.

No, they don't.

From this we know that there is a God the Father, who makes all things that we can see and that we can't.

We know that Jesus is one being with God, and made of the same substance. We hear that God is Light (and apparently Love, and also Kingdom Hearts is Light... maybe). We know that Jesus is eternally begotten. This is a strange phrase because to be begotten means to be born, but to be eternal means a being or process has no beginning and no end. That is to say, Jesus was NOT born once at 6 B.C. but is ALWAYS being born and reborn. Begotten not made, means that Jesus is God, not a creation of God at some point. God is eternal, Jesus is eternal. Through Jesus all things were made, as Jesus is part of the Trinity, like God. He also came from Heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit. He lived, died, and rose again. And at some point he's coming back to judge the living and the dead.

We then are told that God and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit and God sent Jesus earlier through incarnation. And both God and Jesus made all things.

Oh yes, it's explained. It just makes the same sort of sense as this.

Gunnerkrigg Court - By Tom Siddell

None of these are things that you "know", nore are they "explanations".

What they are, is no more or less then religious beliefs from your particular brand of christianity.
Non-christian theists, don't "know" nore do they "believe" any of this.

Don't confuse your religious beliefs, with actual knowledge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have put in one crucial item that you missed. It is shown in red fonts above. Now, tell us what you find unconvincing? Do you find 'existence of you' convincingly explainable by any of your belief systems?

My parents having sex, getting pregnant and giving birth, seems enough of an explanation to me for why I exist.