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

[Bunyip]

You need to qualify that. Everything that comes into existence must have a cause for its existence.

Except God right? And quantum events - like the Big Bang. Cause and effect does not apply to quantum events or God apparently.

 

[Ouroboros]

Loop Quantum Gravity is God.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

God as first cause constitutes a logical relation, not a temporal one.

Establishing a "First Cause" when that "first cause" can not be defined or verified by empirical evidence is certainly NOT a logical relation. Mankind has made that error for centuries: believing in bad luck because black cats cross your path or blaming unknown chemical reactions (or disease) on demons and witches, as an example.

 

[Gambit]

Except God right? And quantum events - like the Big Bang. Cause and effect does not apply to quantum events or God apparently.

If the cosmological argument is sound, then we would expect an uncaused cause at ground zero. This is exactly what we find in quantum events. (By the way, everything reduces to quantum events - not only in the distant past, but right now in the present.)

"Quantum mechanics is telling us that consciousness creates reality." (source: l. 550, "The Purpose-Guided Universe: Believing in Einstein, Darwin and God" by Bernard Haisch)

 

[Bunyip]

If the cosmological argument is sound, then we would expect an uncaused cause at ground zero. This is exactly what we find in quantum events. (By the way, everything reduces to quantum events - not only in the distant past, but right now in the present.)

No. The cosmological argument relies upon the assumption that there can be no uncaused caused. Pre-time cause and effect is meaningless,- it is a temporal concept.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

 

[Laika]

I don't think I made such an assertion, nor do I think that the existence of imperfect knowledge demands the existence of perfect knowledge.

The problem is not the imperfection in our knowledge, but the assumption that some higher authority can tell us "we can't know" something. You have to know that you cannot know something and that implies a higher authority to make such a cliam. Saying we "don't know" is one thing, but saying we "can't know" implies a knowledge cliam (and possibly a moral one that we shouldn't know because we cannot be trusted with the power such knowledge gives us). Hence it is theistic.

As Quantum Mechanics is arguing against naturalistic organisations of the universe that we can know and control, in order to explian the existence, effects and conditions of the universe, an indeterministic explanation necessarily means adopting a position which says that these things are permanatly beyond our comprehension or control

Why assume that anything is permanent at all?

Whilst the conditions of our existence may not be permanant, the processes whilst allow us to exist must necessarily be so. Life cannot exist unless there are some predictable patterns for the organism to function both internally on a biological level and in relating itself to it's environment. It is necessary to draw a distinction between what changes as the result of these processes and the permanance of these processes as laws of nature. Arguing against causality is an argument against the existence of laws of nature.

Whatever it's validity in purely abstract/intellectual terms, in practice this is important as without the existence and understanding of these laws we deny the possibility of having the power to act to change the world and ourselves according to our interests. There is a threshold where choas goes from being something we can handle to something which is beyond our capacity to deal with. I suppose I'm trying to say that it is not in our interests to accept this conclusion.

 

[Bunyip]

The problem is not the imperfection in our knowledge, but the assumption that some higher authority can tell us "we can't know" something. You have to know that you cannot know something and that implies a higher authority to make such a cliam. Saying we "don't know" is one thing, but saying we "can't know" implies a knowledge cliam (and possibly a moral one that we shouldn't know because we cannot be trusted with the power such knowledge gives us). Hence it is theistic.

Brilliant!

 

[rusra02]

Who was God's builder?

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.

 

[metis]

Since one has read book of the Buddhist monk who belongs to Tibetan Buddhism; may I ask a little question.
Don't the Tibetan Buddhism believe in a scripture?
Any body, please.

Regards

Not blindly so as their scriptures (the Pali Canon, the Tripitika, and numerous sutras) are not considered to be "divinely inspired". Here's a good website that may help you: BuddhaNet - Worldwide Buddhist Information and Education Network

 

[metis]

Just curious. What's the difference between "Jewish" naturalism and secular naturalism?

Generally speaking, most of us in this rather vague bracket tend to have a pantheistic/panentheistic drift, often somewhere along the lines of what Spinoza taught. This approach does posit God, but not in the conventional way that most "observant Jews" tend to believe. Einstein, for example, said he believed in "Spinoza's God", and he hypothesized that maybe God was actually the energy of creation itself.

Let me just add that my use of the word "Naturalism" is sort of a compromise choice of labels as I am aware that it is about as clear as mud, so your question is quite appropriate. Hopefully I helped to clear it up at least somewhat even though I have to leave it still somewhat vague as going further is well above my pay-grade.

Have a great weekend.

 

[metis]

Relying too much on scripture is adharmic. And the Buddha explicitly taught not to make too much of an effort to trust the words attributed to him.

So, I would say that making a point of believing in scriptures is just not a very good habit by a Buddhist perspective.

In any case, Buddhist scriptures, far as I recall right now, don't really mention a creator god, fortunately.

I should have read further and read your post before answering the question. I often suffer from premature postification.

 

[metis]

Right. God does not come into existence. God simply is.

You asked me a good question, so let me ask you what hopefully is a good question: How could you possibly know this?

 

[leibowde84]

I've been thinking about this lately.

Chaos is essentially energy. Chaos comes to order when there are rules or laws, anything that restricts chaos in one way or another. That leads it to order. For instance, gravity is a law of nature that orders chaotic energy to become stars, planets, etc.

But, it's not like gravity was put in place at some point. It is just a descriptive term that describes the way that large bodies of matter interact with each other. It just is.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

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

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..

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.

 

[Gambit]

Generally speaking, most of us in this rather vague bracket tend to have a pantheistic/panentheistic drift, often somewhere along the lines of what Spinoza taught. This approach does posit God, but not in the conventional way that most "observant Jews" tend to believe. Einstein, for example, said he believed in "Spinoza's God", and he hypothesized that maybe God was actually the energy of creation itself.

I see. Einstein did indeed articulate a belief in the God of Spinoza.

"Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God." - Albert Einstein, p. 262, "Ideas and Opinions"

Let me just add that my use of the word "Naturalism" is sort of a compromise choice of labels as I am aware that it is about as clear as mud, so your question is quite appropriate. Hopefully I helped to clear it up at least somewhat even though I have to leave it still somewhat vague as going further is well above my pay-grade.

Well, there are forms of naturalistic theism, but this depends on how the term "naturalism" is defined. At any rate, it should be noted that there is a marked distinction between pantheism and panentheism. (I personally have been strongly influenced by Whiteheadian metaphysics, which has been characterized as panentheistic.)

Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2] panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.[3]
(source: Panentheism)

 

[Gambit]

You asked me a good question, so let me ask you what hopefully is a good question: How could you possibly know this?

"God is that being of whom no greater can be conceived." - St. Anselm

If it were possible that God was created by some other external agent, then that external agent would be greater than God. (Nothing is greater than God because that would contradict the definition of God as the perfect being).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No. The cosmological argument relies upon the assumption that there can be no uncaused caused. Pre-time cause and effect is meaningless,- it is a temporal concept.

Exactly. Cause and effect is a feature of space-time, and space-time didn't exist "before" the big bang. So the first cause argument for God is invalid and irrelevant.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

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

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..

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.

This analogy has been presented and beaten to death; and shows nothing.

Brett Palmer disassembles your arguments better than I could:

 

[Ouroboros]

But, it's not like gravity was put in place at some point. It is just a descriptive term that describes the way that large bodies of matter interact with each other. It just is.

But how is it "just is"? Gravitons, curved space, loop quantum gravity? It's not clear yet. But yeah, it just is. Part of nature. Actually, I believe the laws of nature also evolves and changes over time. I don't believe all the laws in nature are eternal or universal even. It's an assumption we've made in natural science to make it easy to figure out the world, but we'll always be surprised by how nature works different than we expected.