1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by LuisDantas, May 19, 2015.

  1. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    43,750
    Ratings:
    +12,956
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Hume was indeed a remarkable man, despite the misstep discussed in the OP, but I think we should not give him too much credit. Those ideas were all but certain to arise eventually, with or without him.


    Fair enough :)
     
  2. Gambit

    Gambit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    3,306
    Ratings:
    +274
    Religion:
    theoria
    LuisDantas,

    If science dispenses completely with causality, then all it is left with are observations and correlations with no causal explanation. Be that as it may, causality is central to Buddhism. It's called karma.
     
  3. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    43,750
    Ratings:
    +12,956
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Actually, that is something I agree with. Probably not with the same emphasis and perceived consequences that you want to imply, but I do.
     
  4. Gambit

    Gambit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    3,306
    Ratings:
    +274
    Religion:
    theoria
    God as first cause constitutes a logical relation, not a temporal one.
     
  5. Bunyip

    Bunyip pro scapegoat

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,919
    Ratings:
    +1,519
    Religion:
    Not religious
    No. Sorry, but you are mistaken. Cause and effect is not an axiom, it is not universal - it is known not to apply at the quantum scale.

    The wiki page 'axiom of causality' is a PROPOSAL, please read citations before posting them. It is not even suggesting that causality is axiomatic.

    Not to forget either that the cause posited in the kalam is uncaused - so it disproves itself.

    Do you actually understand what 'axiomatic' means? It means that something is always true - so the uncaused cause alone proves that causation is not an axiom. Because there are no exceptions to an axiom - God is the exception to causality - therefore causality is not axiomatic.
     
    #45 Bunyip, May 21, 2015
    Last edited: May 21, 2015
  6. Bunyip

    Bunyip pro scapegoat

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,919
    Ratings:
    +1,519
    Religion:
    Not religious
    Who was God's builder?
     
  7. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    43,750
    Ratings:
    +12,956
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Not at all a logical relation. It is just an appeal to supernatural exception with no logical content whatsoever.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Bunyip

    Bunyip pro scapegoat

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,919
    Ratings:
    +1,519
    Religion:
    Not religious
    No, that is false. Something can only be universally true if there are no exceptions - God is claimed as an exception to causality. Therefore causality is not axiomatic.

    For something to be axiomatic, there can be no exceptions. That is essentially what it means to be an axiom.
    So that is another failure of the whole cause and effect nonsense isn't it? People demand that God must exist because every effect must be caused - but then go all vague and whiny when it is pointed out that they apparently don't think God must be caused. My tip would be not to expect others to be dumb enough to swallow a line that they don't believe themselves.
     
  9. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    26,617
    Ratings:
    +10,767
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    You are conflating different things. First of all, cause-and-effect is the basis for the "scientific method", so it is axiomatic to that process. Yes, it is based on certain assumptions, but that still does not remove its "axiom" implication.

    Secondly, you are also terribly mistaken about quantum mechanics, and are conflating not knowing certain causation versus taking a position that there is no causation. We may not understand why photons may go from a particle to a wave or sometimes show characteristics of both at the same time, but that in no way implies there must not be causes for that. It's not that cause-and-effect doesn't apply, it's just that we're far from understanding what the cause(s) may be. Your position would have it that if we don't know what the weather will be like tomorrow in NYC that there is no cause for the weather in NYC.

    Attempting to find cause-and-effect of various natural events is an axiom within science even if you don't want to recognize it as such. That's what we try to do.
     
  10. Bunyip

    Bunyip pro scapegoat

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,919
    Ratings:
    +1,519
    Religion:
    Not religious
    Axioms have no exceptions. Please look up 'axiom' in your dictionary. That god is uncaused establishes that cause and effect is not an axiom.
    As to science, you forget that cause and effect does not apply universally to the scientific method. Cause and effect does not apply at the quantum scale.
    No, you are reacting to your own strawmen there. Cause and effect does not apply at the quantum scale.
    No it isn't. Certainly not for any natural event at the quantum scale - because cause and effect breaks down at the quantum scale.
     
  11. Bunyip

    Bunyip pro scapegoat

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,919
    Ratings:
    +1,519
    Religion:
    Not religious
    Metis

    Keep in mind that an axiom is something that is self evidently true ok? Cause and effect being axiomatic is self evidently NOT true - there are exceptions.
     
  12. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,372
    Our truthful G-d (Allah) is unchanging as none could change Him; His attributes exhibit before in new forms that are beautiful in that sense He is Ever-Changing and none can stop them from changing.
    This is mentioned in Quran.

    Regards
     
  13. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    26,617
    Ratings:
    +10,767
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    Religious beliefs are not testable, so you are simply wrong. Just because someone might believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't in any way have anything to do with what we do in science. Again, you're just conflating different things.

    As I posted before, an "axiom" does not mean that what is considered an axiom is beyond re-evaluation and further testing. "Axioms" are not considered "absolute facts". We call it an "axiom" because it has a proven and widely accepted value within the scientific community.

    "Dumb"? Enough of your trash talk, and enough of you.
     
  14. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    26,617
    Ratings:
    +10,767
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    See above, and goodbye.
     
  15. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,372
    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
     
  16. Bunyip

    Bunyip pro scapegoat

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,919
    Ratings:
    +1,519
    Religion:
    Not religious
    Metis


    I think I can see your confusion.

    You said that my position was that if we don't know the weather in New York tomorrow, that there is no cause for the weather tomorrow.


    Well what you have done there is confuse my position for yours. You are the one saying 'we don't know what the weather will be like tomorrow, therefore it must have been caused by God!" And then expecting others to disprove your assumption.
     
  17. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    26,617
    Ratings:
    +10,767
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    That's a belief, and beliefs are not necessarily facts. How could you know Allah is "Ever-Changing"? Just because it's mentioned in the Qu'ran it supposedly must be correct? C'mon.
     
  18. Bunyip

    Bunyip pro scapegoat

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,919
    Ratings:
    +1,519
    Religion:
    Not religious
    It would be more polite just to admit you made a mistake.

    Axioms have no exceptions. A logical argument relying on an axiom that posits the exception to that axiom as the solution is just useless.
     
  19. Bunyip

    Bunyip pro scapegoat

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,919
    Ratings:
    +1,519
    Religion:
    Not religious
    What? Religious ideas not being testable would make the religious idea of cosmological argument invalid wouldn't it? Aren't you trying to defend it? You are defending cause and effect by dismissing it?
    What? What am I conflating?
    In this case science has proven cause and effect NOT TO BE AXIOMATIC. Science has disproven that cause and effect are universal.
    What trash talk?

    What I said was that people would have to be pretty dumb to swallow an argument that none of the people who propose it believe in themselves.
     
  20. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    26,617
    Ratings:
    +10,767
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    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!
     
Loading...