I have no issues with someone saying they just don’t know enough to determine one way or another if there is a god. But to claim that the lack of evidence is nothing more than lacking evidence is not a valid argument for that stance. I’m pretty sure you and I agree on this point. Frank seems to claim otherwise, as far as I can tell.
Actually, by your own recognition, you are very much an atheist as defined not just in this rather lengthy and repetitive thread but in the many explanations and links provided. In short, you appear to be arguing against yourself – much like friend Frank is.
To wit. From an earlier post of yours:
– highlights in both of your quotes mine.
Confusion/lack of understanding of how the terms being debated apply, all yours.
For anyone wanting an abridged version of the – so far – ten pages of this thread, just watch the following two YouTube videos:
Default position pt 1 of 2 The Atheist Experience
Default position pt 2 of 2 The Atheist Experience
Not sure if I picked-up on it right…but I think the caller’s name might be Frank. 
Again, yet another brief synopsis of what has already been covered here at length…and still seems to continue to scape a couple of the posters involved in the debate:
–Highlights mine. More at source.
Pretty simple really.
Frank, if you’re able to guess that astrology, Yahweh, Zeus and Shiva probably ain’t true, IMHO, you’re using lack of evidence. Admittedly, there are conceptions of God (e.g., Deism) which make no predictions we can test, so theoretically (or logically), “I don’t know” is the most rigorous answer. My approach is simpler. As I said, I’m a materialist. If it can’t be tested, I don’t worry about it.
BTW, if you’re interested, the way to achieve a truce on this Board, or any debate really, is quite simple. Debates aren’t won by the person who has the last word. You say to XYZ, “I’ve expressed my thoughts, you’ve expressed yours; obviously, we’re not going to agree.” For example, I tried to persuade you that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (not proof, but evidence). I failed. Rather than continue to beat a dead horse, I accept that we disagree. Life moves on.
I thought of you when I read [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16quark.html?ref=science] in the Times today. It appears that when scientists at Brookhaven created very extreme conditions they broke one of the fundamental laws of nature, symmetry. Now this doesn’t directly address first causes, but it does indicate that a naive view that natural laws we know of today are going to hold in the early universe are incorrect - not that causality is a natural law, despite your assertions.
BTW, there didn’t appear to be any deities involved in this “supernatural” event.
Ah, but can you prove no deities were involved?
I can prove there were deities involved. I just define god as “a very extreme condition that allows for the laws of nature to be broken”. Tadaa!
But…but… that would mean… the bible IS the word of God!!111one!!
I am sooo going to repent!! Quick where can I go to confess.
Dammit where are all the priests?? Argh, we chased them away OH NOES!!
I know you are joking, but no laws were broken. Just our understanding of them has changed. You can’t declare that “all things repel” to be a law of nature and then after witnessing a falling apple declare that the laws of nature were broken.
(bolding mine)
AHA!
Seriously, I have no doubt there there is a ton of stuff we don’t know. Some of it we will learn, some of it we probably won’t. In my mind that probably won’t change things. The same way that up being the opposite of down won’t change.
Here’s a question for you: do you think that there exists a thing that was not caused into existence?
I agree with you. But let me ask you this, we go to one rock and it’s just a rock, 2 rocks ten rocks, a million rocks, a trillion trillion trillion rocks, and we find that they are just rock. So, as you state, the reasonable thing to conclude is that all rocks are just rocks. There is nothing special about them—and something called a philosopher’s stone does not exist. Right?
Now let’s do another search. Let us look for something that had exists, but had no cause to spark its existence. How many things should one look at before the reasonable conclusion is that no such thing exists?
Right now, we have no—zero—items that fit the bill. So isn’t it thoroughly reasonable to conclude for now that everything does, in fact, have a cause?
One thing that is trotted out is QM, particles “popping in and out of existence”. But from what I’ve read, QM is mute on causality. The phenomenon observed just goes to what is present and what is not.
I am tickled that those who would most fervently discount my “proof” of god (Prime Mover) due to what they call faulty logic, saying that just because we don’t know what the cause for the BB is doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a cause that fits with our understanding of science, these people claim that quantum particles popping in and out of existence are, “uncaused”. There is ZERO evidence for this, but they get religion and will argue that these particles are, in fact, uncaused. Pretty funny. To me, any way.
By the way, I don’t mean to ascribe any of the QM stuff to you. It was just an extension of what I was asking you. I’m interested to hear your answers to the questions.
Sure-the universe.
Perhaps best to say: therefore, we can only conclude that a philosopher’s stone doesn’t exist. But sure.
Well, first of all, “cause” is a difficult term to define precisely-and you seem to be giving it a specific and testable meaning. I don’t know enough about quantum mechanics, or metaphysics, to really work within that–can you be clearer about what you mean by “cause”?
That being said, I’ll try and answer your questions within the context of your hypothetical.
In the context of your hypothetical, and based on your definition of “cause,” sure.
Well, but that takes us out of your hypothetical–which was based on the premise that “we have zero examples of uncaused things.” If you want to now bring in examples of uncaused things, you reject the premise of your own hypothetical.
To perhaps state the obvious, most of those discounting your “proof” (which I didn’t set out to do, but you’ve asked me about it, so I’ll go on), take issue with you doing exactly what you did in the post I’m responding to.
(1) you create a hypothetical universe in which everything is caused. Fine-it’s your hypothetical.
(1b) As you point out, quantum mechanics may make that hypothetical not like reality, but that’s fine. It has nothing to do with the hypothetical–just whether the hypo can be analogized to reality.
(2) (not strictly in the example you gave me, but implicit) You then assert that there must have been a first cause, which was uncaused.
The “discounting” isn’t because it’s impossible to have an uncaused thing. Vacuum fluctuations might be such things. It’s because, you are making an argument based on the premise that everything has a cause.
**As analogy, I might say “Imagine a world where only oranges exist.” You say “sure.” Then I say, “and in this world, because there are only oranges, there must be a orange tree!”
A silly analogy, but it makes the point. Oranges aren’t impossible. Orange trees aren’t impossible. Orange trees do create oranges in the real world. However, by definition, orange trees are impossible in the hypothetical world I’m creating–where the only things in existence are oranges. **
You can’t prove something by breaking the rules of your own hypothetical. (I originally had this hypothetical as “and there must be a banana”—if that works better for you, use it instead).
I hope you can see that the problem people have with your argument isn’t with uncaused things existing–but based on your own premise that there are no such things.
If, on the other hand, uncaused things can exist, that’s fine and dandy. One of them might be an uncaused prime mover. However, we don’t need a prime mover if uncaused things can exist–because you only justify the logical necessity for a prime mover based on the fact that everything had to have a cause.
Fair enough. Again, I’ve just answered your questions based on the premises you gave me. I don’t know enough about QM, or have a firm enough grasp of exactly what you mean by “cause” (beyond the commonsense definition) to go beyond that.
First, thinks for answering the questions as you did. Even acknowledging and following hypotheticals. That’s a rare woefully rare ability around these parts.
But, no, QM does not bring into the equation any such thing. I was saying that some people try to bring up Q particles, AS IF they were uncaused. But there is zero evidence for that being the case. All we know is that we don’t know why they pop in. Now I’d be happy to entertain the possibility that these particles are, in fact, uncaused IF we knew that uncaused matter was even a possibility. We don’t.
Going back to me previous post to you, yes, that is my premise. But I think it a reasonable enough premise for us to accept it as our reality (until new information may conflict with it). Again, how many rocks do we have to look at to see if it is a philosopher’s stone and not find one for “no philosopher’s stones exist” to be the reasonable default position?
Similarly, how many things must we look at and see that they have a cause for us to accept “everything has a cause” as the default position? Would a trillion-trillion-trillion things with a cause and zero things without be enough?
You’re building in a direct contradiction. I am not. My position is that everything in our realm must adhere to certain laws, but that something outside our realm might not be. In your world filled with orange trees, but no oranges, we have other possibilities. Oranges shipped in from other worlds, like pineapples being shipped to Maine. We also have the possibility of oranges created in a lab, etc.
I really don’t see it as breaking the rules. The “rule” is that everything of our realm has a cause. That does not mean that something from outside our realm would be subject to the same laws.
Well, that’s a great starting point. Again, I ask, can you point to something—ONE thing—that we know is uncaused? Barring that, and this goes back to my original question, how many things must we look at and find that they all have causes to make “everything has a cause” the default position?
What your really saying here is that you can have more than one “Prime Mover”. Ignoring the “Prime” part, yes, that is a possibility. There could be godS, but that is unimportant for the discussion. The question simply goes to whether there is at least one Creator God.
By “cause” I mean something that transpired that resulted in X; that without it X (precisely X) would not have occurred.
magellan01 - If I can jump in here for a moment…
I understand what you are postulating, but I think you need to amend your hypothetical to say, “Everything within our universe has a cause.” It isn’t that everything has a cause, as whorfin pointed out, lest you break your own hypothetical.
Accepting that, how do you respond to what I posted earlier:
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 [a] 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.
Well, sure. But if we use the argument you’re making to me–(and a quite reasonable one)–that we only know everything has a cause because, to date, that’s all we’ve found, then things with no apparent cause are evidence against that proposition.
If they are inconsistent with the “causes” we know of, then they are either (1) the result of an unknown cause, (2) uncaused, or (3) require us to correct our definition of “cause.” But either way, it’s a gross leap to read “here are things that we can’t identify the cause of” as anything other than evidence against the contention that “everything that we have found, to date, has a cause.”
Note that this is distinct from the argument Frank is making–because here, we can point to things (QM), that, (for the purposes of argument), don’t fit into the framework of “causes” we now know of. They may have a cause–but their lack of apparent cause is evidence against the proposition that everything has a cause.
Further, if these, apparently uncaused things do have a cause, I throw the argument back at you–what about your “apparently uncaused” prime mover? If it’s reasonable to assume these particles have an unknown cause, why is the same not true of your “prime mover”?
Again, for the purposes of argument, given your definition of cause, this is fine. As I point out later, I dispute that this actually is your premise–given that there is at least one implicit unstated term.
i’ve already argued in favor of this position–IF we find a cause for everything, and do not find things that are uncaused, it is reasonable to assume everything has a cause.
But that is exactly where we disagree. For one thing, the “creator god” you propose isn’t really outside our realm–according to the argument, it can affect and create things in our realm.
As Cmosdes points out, there is also no reason to believe that any entity outside our realm is not subject to the same rule. Sure, it might be–but that’s no reason to conclude that it is.
More importantly, if your premise is that all things must have a cause, you cannot use that to prove something is uncaused. That’s using the conclusion to negate the premise.
And, as you obviously see, that is not the same hypothetical as “a world with nothing but oranges.” If you want to hypothesize about “a world in which our realm has no uncaused things, but there are other realms with things without causes”–that’s fine–but it is different from the premise you are presenting.
And adding that premise is, in your argument, adding as a premise that “gods exist”–since you define “gods” as “uncaused causes.” And all that is doing is saying that within the context of your argument (taking the premises as true), the premises are true. Not much of an argument.
Sure. So “everything has a cause” isn’t really the rule of your hypothetical, is it? It’s not really your premise–you have to put in the twist you make explicit here–so that your premise is not “everything has a cause,” but “everything in this realm, but not everything that can affect this realm has a cause.”
The universe appears to be. As you point out, vacuum fluctuations have (as you frame them), no apparent cause.
Wrong because it implies uncaused=god. That’s a fairly big definitional leap–in fact ,if anywhere, I think this is where your argument catastrophically breaks down—or at the very least, where it requires a leap of faith.
Sure. Thing is, the default position isn’t necessarily true (as the agnostics keep telling the atheists, as if the atheists aren’t already fully aware of the fact).
I’ve had a little training in logic, and the First Causes argument doesn’t look like a proof of god to me. What it looks like is, is a proof by contradiction, of the statement “it is NOT the case that everything has a cause”. In such a proof, you start with a premise and argue from it to a contradiction, which proves that one or more of your premises is false. Here is how I see the argument going.
Premise 1) Everything that exists is an effect and must be caused by something else.
Premise 2) All causes must be prior to their effects.
Premise 3) Infinite pastward chains of …/effect/effect/effect/effect/… are verboten.
(some logic removed)
Inference 1) there must be some cause that is not also an effect, to have started everything.
Conclusion: Premise 1 contradicts Premise 2, therefore one or more of the premises has been proven false.
The minute you arrive at a contradiction, you’re done from a logical standpoint - all that you can usefully do with an argument that contains a contradiction is prove that the premises are flawed.
The first problem here is determining which premise(s) is/are false. If it’s Premise 2 or 3, then you haven’t proven that there’s a first cause at all; there might be infinite causal chains or circular time instead. Personally I think that a solid proof of Premise 3 can be made, and a separate intuitive argument for Premise 2 (though I wouldn’t bet the farm on that one), so for the sake of argument let’s assume that both those are true, which would mean that Premise 1 is false.
Well, what does it mean if “Everything that exists is an effect and must be caused by something else” is false? Does it mean that there’s a first cause? Well, sort of. There might be multiple first causes, which either happened simultanously, or simply not dependent on any prior events.
It also doesn’t mean that the first cause is an entity, much less one that’s still around, much less one that’s sentient or was even aware of anything. Instead the first cause might have been an event with no persistent existence whatsoever.
The definition of “god” is poorly defined, but last I heard all gods were sentient enties with persistent existence. These are not things that can be shown to be true about the first cause(s), so calling them gods is extraordinarily bad argument, equivalent to “We know that somebody murdered this man. Therefore - you did it!” (Random man is grabbed, dragged off, hanged.)
If you don’t go around assuming facts not in evidence, then all we know about first causes is that there were at least one of them (assuming Premises 2 and 3 can be shown to be false). I’ve yet to see anyone actually present the argument and claim that this is the conclusion without fallaciously assuming things about the first causes - inevitably including that there was only one of them.
Sure. No self-respecting deity would be caught dead on Long Island. 
Up being the opposite of down is by definition, just like 1 + 1 = 2 is by definition. (In this case succ(1) = 2. The interesting thing here is not that we didn’t know this, but that something we do know (and is universal in our universe) is not true under these kinds of conditions. After all, we also knew that time was constant, except that we found it isn’t at relativistic velocities. I think you’d be using almost your exact words to pooh-pooh the idea of variant time in the 1850 version of the SDMB.
Sure. The universe. Particles in the quantum foam. If conservation of energy is preserved, there is no reason for it not to happen. Causality is not a universal natural law. It just looks that way at the macro level.