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

[leibowde84]

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.

What evidence do you have to support the position that natural laws change? Of course our understanding of them changes, but not the forces themselves. I am not aware of any reason to think otherwise.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Agree.

I think the biggest problem with the First Cause argument is rather that it's an attempt to "science-fy" God by reducing God's existence to natural laws. God is something beyond our comprehension, not something that falls under the laws of our limited understanding of the world. We think in cause-effect. Therefore God must somehow also be reasoned based on that thinking. It only shows God to be our construct, not something different. The First Cause argument only proves a person's inability to go further in insight. Sorry to be so rude to the First-Cause-rs, but the argument bugs me on so many levels. It has the wrong motivation. If you have to prove God, there is something wrong already.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

Brett Palmer disassembles your arguments better than I could:

give it your best shot

 

[Ouroboros]

What evidence do you have to support the position that natural laws change?

If I had evidence it wouldn't be a belief. I did say "I believe".

The only thing that would be close to evidence would be that the big bang theory states that the physical laws didn't all apply at the beginning of big bang (if I understand it right). Space-time came to be, but for instance certain laws in nature relating to particles, or chemistry, and such, didn't exist yet. This might be an interesting topic for another thread.

Of course our understanding of them changes, but not the forces themselves. I am not aware of any reason to think otherwise.

I've read some article once about it, and I think I've seen some other people writing about it too.

Hang on. I'm doing a google to see if there was something that originally got me thinking in this direction...

Like this one: Quasars Reveal That Laws of Nature Change Over Time

Or this one: Changes spotted in fundamental constant - physicsworld.com

And I found a few articles on some universities with people arguing against immutable laws. After all, the universe has a temporal aspect, which already suggests mutability.

--edit

And one more thing, everything else evolves, why not the things that we consider and think of as laws?

--edit2

Also, the concept of a bubble multiverse, each universe has its own set of laws, which suggests that laws can be different, and not a fixed thing. Why not each universe also have changing laws?

 

[leibowde84]

If I had evidence it wouldn't be a belief. I did say "I believe".

The only thing that would be close to evidence would be that the big bang theory states that the physical laws didn't all apply at the beginning of big bang (if I understand it right). Space-time came to be, but for instance certain laws in nature relating to particles, or chemistry, and such, didn't exist yet. This might be an interesting topic for another thread.


I've read some article once about it, and I think I've seen some other people writing about it too.

Hang on. I'm doing a google to see if there was something that originally got me thinking in this direction...

Like this one: Quasars Reveal That Laws of Nature Change Over Time

Or this one: Changes spotted in fundamental constant - physicsworld.com

And I found a few articles on some universities with people arguing against immutable laws. After all, the universe has a temporal aspect, which already suggests mutability.

--edit

And one more thing, everything else evolves, why not the things that we consider and think of as laws?

--edit2

Also, the concept of a bubble multiverse, each universe has its own set of laws, which suggests that laws can be different, and not a fixed thing. Why not each universe also have changing laws?

Alright, let's take this one step at a time. I think you are confusing the meaning of "belief". With the scientific method, there is no certainty (keep in mind that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not certainty). Certainty is an illusion. So, in essence, no matter how conclusive evidence might be, there is always the possibility that our understanding of a natural law might be wrong. Thus, one does not need to expect surety for evidence to be necessary to "believe" a concept. But, you actually did provide supporting evidence. I appreciate that. Looks like I've got some reading to do.

 

[Ouroboros]

Alright, let's take this one step at a time. I think you are confusing the meaning of "belief". With the scientific method, there is no certainty (keep in mind that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not certainty).

I don't think I confused them at all. But that's just water under the bridge.

Certainty is an illusion.

Agree.

If you had asked me for what support or circumstantial evidence, I probably would have had less knee-jerk reaction to your request. When people ask for "evidence" it's usually in some semi-scientific view, like "prove it to me!" kind'a way. And this thing is not something I need to prove to anyone or show evidence for. It's something I believe. My view of "Big Bang" is somewhat different overall. I think that's an illusion as well.

So, in essence, no matter how conclusive evidence might be, there is always the possibility that our understanding of a natural law might be wrong. Thus, one does not need to expect surety for evidence to be necessary to "believe" a concept. But, you actually did provide supporting evidence. I appreciate that. Looks like I've got some reading to do.

The way this world works is that things emerges. Everything seems to be a result of an emergent property. So I believe that not only the physical world emerges from the quantum world, but even the laws that dictate it.

--edit

Excerpt from a TED talk:

Understanding BIG BANG , from the law of physics of today, is not achievable.
The laws of physics , just before the big bang , were different . We have evidence of speed , greater than light In the universe . These speed were attained immediately after big bang & lasted for a very short period . There after the laws were concreted , which the nature follows today.

To understand BIG Bang we have to look & understand , the laws prevailing, before the big bang.

Probably there was no third dimension, or gravity, before big bang , & the introduction of the third dimension or the gravity caused the big bang .

Time also came into being after the big bang. As time is understood as the " Distance travelled , divide by speed. The light, which, does not need any medium for travel, was it self not there. Hence There was nothing that travelled . NO travel , no distance covered , no speed hence no time

Understanding BIG BANG , from the law of physics of today, is not achievable. | A conversation on TED.com

In my view, if laws can come to be, they can also be changed. (And I don't believe in the "Fine Tuned" argument either that the constants have to be exactly what they are to allow the world to exist. It's a matter of a fine balance rather between all constants. They all fit together, but if one changes, so will everything else, but it doesn't mean it can't exist. In my opinion.)

 

[metis]

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.)

In one of my books, in this case written by a rather liberal rabbi, he mentioned that most of us Jews who drift in this direction do not differentiate between pantheism and panentheism, not because they're the same, which they're clearly not, but because how could we determine which is correct.

BTW, thanks for the link.

 

[metis]

"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).

But please realize you really didn't answer the question, namely how could you possibly know that "God simply is"? How could anyone actually know? How could we possibly know there's only one God? How could one possibly know that nothing preceded or created God?

My main thrust on this is that we often to jump to conclusions that don't have a shred of evidence behind them, or that the evidence is scant. Trust me (I'm Jewish ), been there, done that!

 

[paarsurrey]

Pali Canon, the Tripitika, and numerous sutras

Then why have the scriptures, canonical and or non-canonical, if none of them is divinely. They hold them sacred; for what?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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

That is correct.
I agree with it.

Regards

 

[metis]

Then why have the scriptures, canonical and or non-canonical, if none of them is divinely. They hold them sacred; for what?

Regards

I use my Oxford Desk Dictionary to periodically help me, and yet I don't believe it is "sacred". AS LD mentioned, the Buddhist scriptures are not looked at in the same way as most in the Abrahamic religions look at theirs.

 

[metis]

That is correct.
I agree with it.

Regards

How do you supposedly know it is correct?

 

[paarsurrey]

I didn't say otherwise. I was just asking you if you think Hume's philosophical notion somehow relates to the origin of the universe.

Scientific progress goes on, there is no need to stop the wheel of progress. None of the founders of religions was against science.

Regards

 

[Gambit]

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.

The first cause argument is employed to establish a ground being for all times (past, present, and future), not for a single event in the distant past. (The creation is something that is occurring in the present moment.) This is what you and most people fail to comprehend.

 

[Gambit]

No. The cosmological argument relies upon the assumption that there can be no uncaused caused.

Nonsense! The cosmological argument is employed to establish an uncaused cause (in the present moment). The metaphysical doctrine of creation is something that occurs for all times (past, present, and future). (This is what you and most other people - theists and atheists alike - fail to comprehend.)

 

[Gambit]

In one of my books, in this case written by a rather liberal rabbi, he mentioned that most of us Jews who drift in this direction do not differentiate between pantheism and panentheism, not because they're the same, which they're clearly not, but because how could we determine which is correct.

This depends on whether you believe in self-determinination or free will. (God works indirectly through agents.)

 

[Gambit]

But please realize you really didn't answer the question, namely how could you possibly know that "God simply is"? How could anyone actually know? How could we possibly know there's only one God? How could one possibly know that nothing preceded or created God?

Knowledge has been traditionally in epistemology defined as "justified belief." I justify my belief in one divine being based on the cosmological argument, the principle of parsimony. and the principle of the greatest (or most perfect) being.

 

[metis]

This depends on whether you believe in self-determinination or free will. (God works indirectly through agents.)

How do you know about how God works?

[sorry to be a pest, but I gotta work on your what I believe are your assumptions-- just say "The devil made metis do it!" ]

 

[metis]

Knowledge has been traditionally in epistemology defined as "justified belief." I justify my belief in one divine being based on the cosmological argument, the principle of parsimony. and the principle of the greatest (or most perfect) being.

Actually you go way beyond that rather basic argument, and "justified belief" as a prime causation only works if all other possible causes are eliminated.

For example, how can you be certain that God caused our universe and it was not Gods working in collaboration? Another could be how could one possibly know that God is "the greatest (or most perfect) being"?

Anyhow, I am not really trying to undermine your faith but just pointing out that we all tend to make assumptions whereas there's literally no support or only scant support for them.

I gotta leave soon (for the Sabbath), so have yourself a great weekend.

 

[Bunyip]

Nonsense! The cosmological argument is employed to establish an uncaused cause (in the present moment).

No Idea where you got that idea from - but it is wrong.

The metaphysical doctrine of creation is something that occurs for all times (past, present, and future). (This is what you and most other people - theists and atheists alike - fail to comprehend.)

Yes, and that is why people laugh at it. It does indeed rely on cause and effect being axiomatic - and then posits the disproof of that axiom (God) as a solution. It needs no cause. Why would it need one?