After we understand everything, we will still be stuck with “what started it all”. And that thing will, by definition, not need to have been caused.
No they’er not. Though for some reason you want them to be. Try thinking of god being none of the things you described. Just that which started everything off.
You’re not telling us why this Creator God gets a free pass from your requirement. I posted a snippet from the IronChariots wiki yesterday and you didn’t respond.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...gical_argument
How about answering the questions at the end?
Wrong about what? What he beleives regarding god or what he believes about the definition of “atheism”? If it’s the latter, aren’t you really arguing that all agnostics are weak atheists, making the word unnecessary? Do you not see a demarcation between atheism (weak) and agnosticism?
I don’t see that as an insult. I see that as him trying very hard to re-explain things again and again using different words. And in the end, isn’t it really a guess, for everyone. Do you not make for the possibility, however infinitesimal, that you may be wrong?
It’s an observable fact, by anyone of any stripe, that some strong atheists take a leap similar to that taken by the highly religious. We look at fundamentalists and say, "how can they be so hubristic? Don’t they understand that no man is perfect, they he is flawed, and he may be wrong? Well, those same questions can be asked of many strong atheists. That’s how I took it anyway.
So, he IS an agnostic now? Maybe I misunderstood you. I hope I did. That would make more sense. Let me just ask you, do you see a demarcation between what we mean when we say someone is an atheist and what we mean when we say someone is an agnostic?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think he’s being argumentative at all. You seem to be considerably busier in that arena in your exchanges.
Logic. at some point you have to have a Prime Mover. That is God.
Look at that line I just wrote. The thinking moves from left to right, not right to left.
You’re failing to explain why our prime mover gets a free pass. You said everything that exists must have a cause. Why everything “but one thing”? How about answering the questions at the end of the Iron Chariots quote I asked you to?
WTF?
I think this argument keeps getting bogged down in whether the issue is resolvable or not. As in the atheist position does the pink unicorn and what not as a way of trying to argue the concept of god is no different from any other concept man has come up with that cant be resolved by empirical means.
The agnostic answer really is ‘you might be right, it might be no different from a pink unicorn - but maybe it isnt’, rather than trying to definitely define how it is different - because if they could define its difference other than with ‘what its trying to answer’ they wouldnt need to be agnostic.
They dont find the atheist position entirely convincing even if they cant come up with something better. Similarly faith doesnt work as an answer either, although generally they reject the more detailed theistic arguments, and more wonder about things like whether there is an afterlife or not. It might be more a case of wanting some aspects of theism to be true even if they cant find the evidence particularly compelling that it is.
In many ways it is not an inherently logical position developed from first principles, but more a rejection of common atheist or theist positions as complete, without feeling the obligation to offer something in return. Which is why this debate isnt much use at resolving the issue - the more you try to get agnostics to define their position in more detail on issues like what ‘god means’ to an agnostic, the more you’re missing the point of the position.
Otara
No. I did explain it in my reply to you. Please think about what I wrote, because it really does sum it up nicely
I’m not going to attempt to answer a bunch of questions posted on websites all over the internet. Why don’t you ask your own questions? If you must, copy and paste one or two. But really, can you not think for yourself? I’m not looking up answers any place.
Also, the link didn’t work for me.
You are starting with a preconceived notion of god. The god I am talking about exists out of necessity based on the criterion of "needing no cause. You’re looking at the statement on the right, equating him with some notion you have, then (understandably) wondering why he gets a pass. But wipe your mind clean—no gods. Just look at the statement on the left. The god I am describing is born out of that. So, by definition, he needs no cause. He is the Prime Mover.
You mean this?:
That’s summing it up nicely? That doesn’t explain anything at all.
:rolleyes: I posted three very short paragraphs with two simple questions at the end. I didn’t ask you to answer a “bunch of questions” posted “all over the internet.”
Uhh, that’s what I did. The two questions are at the end of three very short paragraphs that I pasted.
I asked you similar questions which you avoided yet you claimed you “summed up nicely.”
You don’t need the link as I posted the relevant part, but here’s the link again:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument
I’m doing no such thing. You are the one with the notion that everything needs a cause. If he exists, he requires a something that put him in motion by your criterion.
If a god can exist without a cause, then he isn’t needed as a simple particle can be the prime mover or a universe that always was. You’re not explaining why any god gets a free pass but something else, anything else, doesn’t.
Actually, I meant this exchange:
Your link worked for me this time, But I’m not sure which questions you want me to answer. Can you point me to your previous post, where you included the questions?
Thanks. I’ll try to get to it tonight.
Nothing can exist without a cause, therefore there is something without a cause that caused everything else. Does that even begin to make sense?
No. You’re not reading closely enough. Look, everything we can point to in our world has a cause for its existence. You cannot point to anything that does not. Zero items out all the universe we know qualifies. So, let’s say there is a thing that caused the BB. Based on the breadth of our experience it is logical that that thing would, in turn, need to have been caused. We keep going back that way. Eventually, we need something that caused what came after it, but it itself did NOT need a cause. That points to god, IMO.
Okay, based on this, would you at least agree that this particle is what we consider “other worldly”, that it, nor anything like it is contained within the sphere of our collective experience and knowledge base?
That’s not any better. That’s a statement without an explanation of why your god gets a free pass.
I re-posted it in post #363. I’ll post it again below.
How about, nothing of our world? Can you point to anything that has no cause? If you can’t and all our scientists can’t, isn’t it logical to conclude that there is nothing that resembles anything we are aware of that will not require a cause.
What didn’t I read closely enough? Sheesh!
So what? You’re talking about at this point in the Universe’s existence where we the four fundamental forces. We don’t know what the laws of physics were earlier or before this Universe existed if there is such a thing as before the Universe.
What seems like common sense isn’t necessarily the way things work in science. Effects may even precede causes sometimes in the quantum world.
Yes, you’ve said that before. Several times now. You’re not explaining why this god gets a free pass from your own requirement. Read the three paragraphs I posted and answer the questions without just saying “god did it”, since this breaks the rules you say must exist.
No. I’m not a scientist and from what I understand, particles may just be able to existence from nothing or effects may precede causes in the quantum world. Also, you’re ignoring that the Universe or bubble of universes may have always existed and there was no beginning. Are you saying a simple particle is “god” if it’s something that’s not “within the sphere of our collective experience and knowledge base?” In that case, there are lots of gods and there have been lots of gods that have ceased to be now that we understand them.
Just because you can’t fathom something without a cause doesn’t mean it isn’t possible and that there must be a god.
Even if there is a “prime mover” there is absolutely no indication at all about any properties of this prime mover other than it is without cause. In other words, there is no evidence of sentience, no evidence of forethought and certainly no evidence of continued interaction with the universe. It just leaves big “so what”. The prime mover could be anything. There certainly isn’t any indication that this prime mover even still exists. And it most definitely is no indication that it has any of the properties ever associated with any god ever defined anywhere, save for being uncaused.
No, but apparently you can.
Frank, thanks for your reply (Post #301). I’m not going to bother with the quote function, as we mostly agree or at least agree on the points where we disagree. I’m only posting as a courtesy, to follow up on your “Are there any sentient beings living on the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol?” thought experiment.
To be honest, I don’t think this is apt to the question at issue. Importantly, unlike God, we know for a fact that life can exist on a planet, as we live on one where it does. Whether it also exists on some other defined set of planets is a different kind of question. Further, I resolve that question on other grounds. From what we can tell, life probably isn’t unique to Earth, but it probably is pretty rare. So, I conclude it’s unlikely there is life on said close-by systems. Even taking the thought experiment on its own terms, if asked whether I believe they have life in the absence of evidence, I’d say no. I’d acknowledge this isn’t proof and I’d agree it’s possible. But, possible isn’t the same as 50/50. Heck, solipsism is possible, but I don’t lose much sleep over it.
BTW, I’m curious. When it comes to astrology, are you skeptical or agnostic? For that matter, are you skeptical or agnostic about Yahweh, Zeus and Shiva? Bertrand Russell observed in What Is an Agnostic? (1953), “If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.” What say you?
Hint: I’d say that Russell was an agnostic by the standards of his day, but a soft atheist by contemporary standards.
I am not an atheist…although I understand the compulsion of atheists to want to include me in their ranks.
But no matter how much they want me…I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic.
If there is a “stigma” against atheism…I am not part of the group who sees the stigma…and if any theist were to assert a stigma against it, I would laugh at him or her for doing so.
Any perceived “stigma” against atheism has nothing whatever to do with why I do not consider myself an atheist. I do not consider myself an atheist or a theist…because I am neither. I am an agnsotic.
Absolutely not…but if I cannot use a Websters Dictionary…or a Cambridge dictionary…to define a word, perhaps the problem is with the way the word is defined.
I am an agnostic…no matter how much you want me to be one of you atheists.