The Problem With Theistic Arguments

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would offer....the simple regression
Someone had to be First

Or something

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

inquiring minds want to know

Just asserting "god dun it", is the very opposite of "inquiring".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because there is always a cause and effect.

IN the universe. And seemingly only on the scale of classical physics for that matter... In the quantum world, causality isn't that cut and dry.

Anyhow, causality is a thing IN the universe, as it is completely dependend on the physical laws of the universe and the temporal context that exists within the universe.

If you remove the universe from existance, you also remove all the parameters and conditions that are REQUIRED for causality to be a thing.

In other words: you can't invoke causality when discussing the origins of the universe, because you'ld necessarily be talking about conditions / an environment where the universe DOES NOT YET EXIST.

So the physics of the universe (which are required for causality) don't exist either at that point either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

All these things require the universe to exist.
None of this applies when the universe does not exist.

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

Atomic decay. What causes proton X to decay rather then proton Y?
Virtual particles popping into existance out of nowhere and then disappearing again into oblivion.


Now a question for you: can you give me an example of causality when TIME itself doesn't exist?
Causes preceed effects, after all.
Effects happen AFTER causes, after all.

How can you have a sequence of events, one happening after the other, in atemporal conditions?


Once more: the physics of the universe, go out the window when you remove the universe from existance.
Everything the universe contains (including its physical laws of space-time), is removed from existance along with the universe itself.


So once more: causality can not be invoked when discussing the origins of the universe, since causality is dependend on the universe existing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Every scientist worth his salt.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

They look for an EXPLANATION for the origins of the universe.

Cosmologists that are involved in that research will tell you that the concept of "cause" may not be a sensical concept when it comes to the origins of the universe, and in fact likely isn't.

 

[Kenny]

1) QM sets serious limits to the concept of causation itself

what limits

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

Which fits it to the narrative of God in the Christian thought since God is light where there is no time. As I said before... spiritual laws are different the natural laws.

3) Even classically causality becomes very fuzzy, if not utter nonsensical at microscopic scale, since it crucially depends on the direction of time

Since time is not necessary - direction is irrelevant. So very logical that God is involved.

 

[Kenny]

Just asserting "god dun it", is the very opposite of "inquiring".

Not really, because we ask "HOW did God dun it" and by understanding the principles, work it in the natural.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"It's just as logical to assume the thing you were trying to explain with a god needs no explanation at all.".

And this right here is your downfall. Because it is "just as logical" it means that neither "side" carries more weight than the other. Except here's the rub - YOU are the one proposing that you have an adequate explanation. The other side usually only says that we don't know the explanation, and proposing something to fill that void that you can't be certain of is foolishness. There is, most often, no positive claim being made to fill that void except by the theist. A person who says "I don't know" is not the irrational one in a conversation about things that cannot (currently) be known. Guess who is Ken...

 

[Kenny]

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.

Because it is "just as logical" it means that neither "side" carries more weight than the other.

Where did I say that my side carries more weight?

Other explanations may have logic involved too. I simply find "why any of these things need to be explained at all" to be illogical since human nature basically contain the effort to "try to explain things".

So, please take things in context.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Where did I say that my side carries more weight?

When you posited that you had an explanation that you felt others should listen to or take heed of. If that isn't you, my apologies. But please, be honest with yourself.

Other explanations may have logic involved too. I simply find "why any of these things need to be explained at all" to be illogical since human nature basically contain the effort to "try to explain things".

But you have to admit that an explanation is not necessary. As in - you aren't, at all, going to die or find yourself in dire straits if you don't have an explanation. That's the kind of "why?" I think is being referred to. As in - it doesn't matter too much - so why are you making it matter so much that you try and talk others into your explanation?

So, please take things in context.

I'm pretty sure I did.

 

[Kenny]

I'm pretty sure I did.

Ok... we will have to agree that we disagree.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

You're ignoring your own fallacy again. Assuming that the laws that apply to parts of the universe must also apply to the whole is a mistake. You assume the universe needs a cause but have no evidence to support that assumption. And many scientists aren't looking for a cause of the universe. Even if there were one, I don't think we could ever know what it was.

 

[PureX]

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

Neither do 'multiverse' theories, 'infinity' theories, or 'random accident' theories. And yet people invent them, and presume them to be true, because it makes them feel less ignorant, and therefor less vulnerable. And even though they know these are just theories, they still have faith that their scientific process (vs a religious process) will someone keep them safe and effective until it finally reveals the truth to them.

"God" is not the only fantasy answer we humans invent, and then put our faith in.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

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

God?

 

[Kenny]

You're ignoring your own fallacy again. Assuming that the laws that apply to parts of the universe must also apply to the whole is a mistake. You assume the universe needs a cause but have no evidence to support that assumption. And many scientists aren't looking for a cause of the universe. Even if there were one, I don't think we could ever know what it was.

I think "the fallacy" is only in your perspective.

 

[viole]

what limits

I can tell you, but I am not sure about your knowledge of QM. If you tell me, I will adapt the explanation.

Which fits it to the narrative of God in the Christian thought since God is light where there is no time. As I said before... spiritual laws are different the natural laws.

Spiritual laws are made up by physical brains.

However, my point is: can you give a definition of causality without a flow of time? For instance, how do I differentiate between cause and effect?

Since time is not necessary - direction is irrelevant. So very logical that God is involved.

Again, can you give me a definition of causality without a preferred time direction?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I think "the fallacy" is only in your perspective.

Maybe I'm not understanding your position. Are you saying God must NECESSARILY exist because of some unproven "law of cause and effect?" If so, that's a fallacy because you haven't demonstrated that the "law of cause and effect" applies to the whole universe. If you say that you believe in God but acknowledge the "law of cause and effect" is unproven and just speculation, then your position is not fallacious, though I wouldn't agree with it.

 

[Hawkins]

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.

Wrong premise.

By your line of reasoning, we don't need explanation on any figures such as Hitler. We actually "need" such an explanation as long as these figures have an impact on humans, either right now or in the past or possibly in the future. We "explain" them in a way of gathering information about their characteristics from those witnessed these figures. God is supposed to have a huge impact on humans, or else He's ignored. If He's not ignored and mass of humans believe that He has an impact on our past and present and potentially in the future, then we can have different speculations originated from the testimonies from those who witnessed Him or His ability in the past, including what can be done within His power and ability.

To put it another way, creation according to those who witnessed Him was done by God. This cannot be refuted yet even by our science as we humans basically lack the ability to confirm a long past. The advocate remains a possibility. It is thus reasonable to speculate that without Him then X may not be able to be created. Especially when it is said the God being portrayed by those witnesses as an omnipotent figure. This is not trying to prove anything, it is rather an evaluation on what God being capable of to reflect what He can do to affect us, especially our future. It is actually a very responsible behavior unless you can prove that those writings left by those claimed witnesses (mostly prophets and apostles) are not true, that is to rule out the possibility of such a God portrayed by them.

 

[Igtheism]

>>>The Hammer<<<Who says the Gods 1) Need explaining. And 2) Need to follow any sort of Logic?<<<

"The Gods"? What do you claim to be talking about when you say 'the Gods"?