Ah ha! You can't explain X, therefore God!

[Methinx]

How do you even know this? Where is the evidence?

I was thinking of the difference between inanimate objects which lack volition and personal beings who can intentionally cause stuff.

Stupefying coincidence is still just a coincidence, unless you can show that there's intent, not just assert it.

 

[Lion IRC]

Did you intend to write that post?

 

[Methinx]

Did you intend to write that post?

If you can see it... what do you think?

 

[AJ113]

...I was thinking of the difference between inanimate objects which lack volition and personal beings who can intentionally cause stuff.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence for inanimate objects creating the universe as there is for an imaginary sky daddy creating it. I.e. none.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How do you even know this? Where is the evidence?

I was thinking of the difference between inanimate objects which lack volition and personal beings who can intentionally cause stuff.

So your first cause argument isn't really a first cause argument after all. It is a et voluntas secundum esse personale argument because there can be no first cause without a personal being. And how convenient is that?

What causes a personal being to have volition? More importantly, what causes a personal being with volition to just happen to exist? Oh, forgot again, the argument for a first cause. Do you see how silly the argument is?

The better question is where do first causes come from, who put that teapot into orbit anyway.

 

[Lion IRC]

You could devise a metaphysical first cause that wasn't a personal (thinking) being but the problem is that such a thing would be more like 'woo' than the God conlusion you're trying to avoid.

A first cause that doesn't 'decide' to cause something but simply does spontaneous stuff randomly with zero intent seems to me a lot worse than saying God acts in mysterious ways or its turtles all the way down or that the universe has always just existed.

The biblical theist is arguing for an intentionally caused universe. What are the non-theist alternatives?

- past eternal universe
- spontaneous popping into existence of things like universes

Don't say there's no evidence for God then expect me to swallow either of those two unsupported claims

 

[AJ113]

...A first cause that doesn't 'decide' to cause something but simply does spontaneous stuff randomly with zero intent seems to me a lot worse than saying God acts in mysterious ways...

"...so I will devise my own first cause based on nothing other than my own personal preferences..."

 

[Lion IRC]

...I was thinking of the difference between inanimate objects which lack volition and personal beings who can intentionally cause stuff.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence for inanimate objects creating the universe as there is for an imaginary sky daddy creating it. I.e. none.

Oh well, since youre putting words in my mouth...

I'm guessing everything presented to you as evidence for God's existence is summarily dismissed with the words; "That's not evidence".

Holocaust deniers and global warming sceptics use the same approach.

 

[AJ113]

...I'm guessing everything presented to you as evidence for God's existence is summarily dismissed with the words; "That's not evidence"

.How about you present some evidence, and we'll examine it's validity together?

Holocaust deniers and global warming sceptics use the same approach.

Their denials are in the face of evidence to the contrary, which is more like a theist insisting that his own particular flavour of sky daddy exists in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Lion IRC]

How about you present some evidence, and we'll examine it's validity together?

I've already presented tons of evidence.

That's not !@&#£ EVIDENCE!!!

 

[abaddon]

You could devise a metaphysical first cause

Or not. There’s no logical necessity for a first cause at all. Some people suffer from a feeling that existence is weird and needs a “why” so there must be a beginning. But why does existence... not "the universe" but existence... need a beginning? Don’t say Big Bang because you don’t know that this universe represents all existence, you don't know it doesn’t “recycle” or that infinite universes haven’t forever been bubbling forth an infinite number of more universes, from infinity into infinity. Your binary “eternal universe” versus “eternal creator” does not present all the possibilities. Humans haven't even conceived all the possibilities. Why do you need an answer NOW rather than later?

that wasn't a personal (thinking) being but the problem is that such a thing would be more like 'woo' than the God conclusion you're trying to avoid.

The "God conclusion" isn't a conclusion. You just introduce a nebulous nothing into this conundrum and pretend it's an answer when it's just a big fat airy abstraction. The evidence for a universe is something we can all see. The evidence for god is just anthropomorphic projections.

A first cause that doesn't 'decide' to cause something ... seems to me a lot worse than...

You don’t know there’s a first cause. You just keep assuming it.

There’s no law against an infinite regress. People don’t like it because it feels unsatisfying, but there are no logical or physical reasons to consider it impossible.

The biblical theist is arguing for an intentionally caused universe. What are the non-theist alternatives?

- past eternal universe
- spontaneous popping into existence of things like universes

Don't say there's no evidence for God then expect me to swallow either of those two unsupported claims

Over-simple binary choices...

Again, why do you need an answer NOW rather than later? Or never?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You could devise a metaphysical first cause that wasn't a personal (thinking) being but the problem is that such a thing would be more like 'woo' than the God conlusion you're trying to avoid.

A first cause that doesn't 'decide' to cause something but simply does spontaneous stuff randomly with zero intent seems to me a lot worse than saying God acts in mysterious ways or its turtles all the way down or that the universe has always just existed.

The biblical theist is arguing for an intentionally caused universe. What are the non-theist alternatives?

- past eternal universe
- spontaneous popping into existence of things like universes

Don't say there's no evidence for God then expect me to swallow either of those two unsupported claims

The universe is everywhere all the time, so 'past eternal universe' is a convincing argument until someone discovers it's absence.

 

[Juma]

How do you even know this? Where is the evidence?

I was thinking of the difference between inanimate objects which lack volition and personal beings who can intentionally cause stuff.

? How is this evidence for that god doesnt need a cause?

 

[Lion IRC]

Or not. There’s no logical necessity for a first cause at all.

I've been agreeing to that over and over again.

...You don’t know there’s a first cause. You just keep assuming it.

No I do not assume there is a first cause.
How many times do I have to repeat myself - you can avoid a first cause entirely by positing a past-eternal metaphysic.
Every single apologist work I have read accepts that you can have a category of 'things' which don't come into existence and which exist by some (metaphysical) necessity.

...There’s no law against an infinite regress.

I know.

...there are no logical or physical reasons to consider it impossible.

I know.
Again, you sound as if you're talking to someone who has claimed a past-eternal universe is impossible.
Please scroll back and use the quote function if you find any posts by Lion IRC claiming that.
In fact I have stated several times that a past eternal, uncaused universe seems to be the most obvious way to avoid the First Cause argument. Why would I concede that if I could show it to be impossible?

The biblical theist is arguing for an intentionally caused universe. What are the non-theist alternatives?

- past eternal universe
- spontaneous popping into existence of things like universes

Don't say there's no evidence for God then expect me to swallow either of those two unsupported claims

Over-simple binary choices...

Again, why do you need an answer NOW rather than later? Or never?

I don't need an answer. I've already got one.
And if you aren't in any hurry to answer the question (ignostic?) then that's your business.
Just don't ask me to take up any supposed burden of persuasion if you don't see any need for answers.

 

[Lion IRC]

I was thinking of the difference between inanimate objects which lack volition and personal beings who can intentionally cause stuff.

? How is this evidence for that god doesnt need a cause?

It's not meant as such. I was trying to make the point that 13.7 billion year old universes don't cause their own coming into existence but are contingent on a cause that can 'decide' when and whether a universe should exist.

To use the analogy of a light switch turning a light bulb on or off, then 13.7 billion years ago the light was switched on. Did it turn itself on?

If so, why 13.7 billion years ago and not earlier?

Perhaps the switch unexpectedly (spontaneously) turned itself on for no reason at all. But then arent we left wondering whether the universe might 'magically' disappear spontaneously?

This is possible but how is the light bulb mysteriously turning itself on and off more tenable than a causal agent/mechanism scenario in which Someone intends the light to be switched on? Why is God (and the afterlife) such an objectionable scenario?

 

[none]

? How is this evidence for that god doesnt need a cause?

It's not meant as such. I was trying to make the point that 13.7 billion year old universes don't cause their own coming into existence but are contingent on a cause that can 'decide' when and whether a universe should exist.

To use the analogy of a light switch turning a light bulb on or off, then 13.7 billion years ago the light was switched on. Did it turn itself on?

If so, why 13.7 billion years ago and not earlier?

Perhaps the switch unexpectedly (spontaneously) turned itself on for no reason at all. But then arent we left wondering whether the universe might 'magically' disappear spontaneously?

This is possible but how is the light bulb mysteriously turning itself on and off more tenable than a causal agent/mechanism scenario in which Someone intends the light to be switched on? Why is God (and the afterlife) such an objectionable scenario?

i'm going with: because you have to assume 2 things, the supernatural and a cause
that you now have 2 things that need explaining whereas before you only had one

 

[bilby]

? How is this evidence for that god doesnt need a cause?

It's not meant as such. I was trying to make the point that 13.7 billion year old universes don't cause their own coming into existence but are contingent on a cause that can 'decide' when and whether a universe should exist.

To use the analogy of a light switch turning a light bulb on or off, then 13.7 billion years ago the light was switched on. Did it turn itself on?

If so, why 13.7 billion years ago and not earlier?

Perhaps the switch unexpectedly (spontaneously) turned itself on for no reason at all. But then arent we left wondering whether the universe might 'magically' disappear spontaneously?

This is possible but how is the light bulb mysteriously turning itself on and off more tenable than a causal agent/mechanism scenario in which Someone intends the light to be switched on? Why is God (and the afterlife) such an objectionable scenario?

The lightbulb is a poor analogy.

How about 13.7b years ago, the ball reached the ground, and bounced.

Who decided it would bounce, rather than pass through the ground unchecked, is a stupid and meaningless question; it is in the nature of balls to interact with hard surfaces by bouncing off them. They do so whether there is anyone present or not.

It is not a stretch to imagine an eternal universe of mass-energy, that complies with the first law of thermodynamics, and which collapses to a singularity under its own gravity once every few hundred billion years or so, and rebounds in a 'Big Bang' each time.

This hypothesis may well be wrong; but as it only includes objects and forces that we have observed, it is preferable over any hypothesis that includes any unobserved objects or forces. Gods are unparsimonious. So if you want me to accept their existence, you will need to have some very strong evidence that the observed universe couldn't be as it is without them.

Of course, before you can present that evidence, you will need to learn what evidence actually IS, as you have made it very clear that you don't know.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

? How is this evidence for that god doesnt need a cause?

It's not meant as such. I was trying to make the point that 13.7 billion year old universes don't cause their own coming into existence but are contingent on a cause that can 'decide' when and whether a universe should exist.

A couple generations ago that argument wouldn't be 13.7 billion years but only thousands of years. God used to send evil spirits now he sends germs. Einstein claimed god does not play dice.

It's fascinating watching people cling to piety in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For some folks, obviously gods equate with the absence of gods.

Maybe we should just say that the absence of a god is not a god of absence. I think that's how their brains are handling it.

 

[Lion IRC]

@Bilby
Isnt your bouncing ball analogy nothing more than the light switch continuously turning on and off and on and off and on and off and ad infinitum...?

 

[bilby]

@Bilby
Isnt your bouncing ball analogy nothing more than the light switch continuously turning on and off and on and off and on and off and ad infinitum...?

No.

There's no need for agency when an elastic object impacts a hard surface. It bounces. Nobody needs to make it bounce.

Light switches don't flick themselves on and off.