There you go. Well put. Some of us (myself included) call that logic.
Just as logical as “agnostic” not being corseted to one single definition as much as Thomas H. Huxley might have wanted it to.
The world evolves as does the definition of some words.
I guess we’ll just disagree on this. I think the syllogism ol’ Tommy A. constructs sheds quite a bit of light on the problem.
Because nothing about the universe as we understand it suggests that it is not, in its whole or in its components, a moved mover. Or, what Tom A. said. So what does that leave us? Do you accept as faith that there is some physical property as yet undiscovered that would explain this? What would possibly explain a physical circumstance like this that was not brought into being, what explains whatever state of the universe that you’d care to consider?
No, I think you misunderstand the argument. There is either an infinite regress (a logical absurdity), or there is an unmoved mover, or there is some other flaw in Tom A’s syllogism. No other possibilities, right?
Wouldn’t the existence of an unmoved mover imply infinite regress? An unmoved mover could not have something that caused it to exist, thus it must always have existed.
The unmoved mover is merely an assertion that there is an entity without a cause. There is no way to show that that unmoved mover isn’t the universe.
My argument was the same as that of lowbrass
:dubious: All you have done is substitute and entity about which we know nothing for one about which we know something.
In other words, you claim that what we know about the universe show it to be caused, or maybe not to be uncaused. I don’t think that’s true since we really don’t know anything about the origin of the universe. And since we don’t know anything at all about the unmoved mover we can’t reasonably assert that it doesn’t suffer from the same defect you assert for the universe.
And. by the way lowbrass and I didn’t originate this refutation. Bertrand Russell, among others, pointed out the same defect in Tom’s proof.
Yeah, a long time ago.
Sure. I’m just reacting to being told that “you are not an atheist but an agnostic” for the umpteenth time.
I usually identify myself as an atheist because it’s the man-made religions that tend to be truly important. It’s all well and good to speculate about some abstract creator on a message board (or in a dorm room), but no one ever built a cathedral, cut out the still-beating heart of a prisoner, sold all their worldy possessions for the benefit of the poor, waged holy war to slaughter the infidels, or endured torture rather than renounce the One True Faith over the belief that on balance it seems more reasonable than not that the Universe came into being as the result of the actions fo some sort of intelligent entity or entities (whether presently or formerly existing), who may or may not even be concerned with our existence.
Even the American Deists spoke of a Creator who endowed human beings with “inalienable rights” and of the “protection of divine Providence”.
And last I heard all the evidence still points to some form of the Big Bang Theory. I’m not saying I have some religious faith in the Big Bang, just that arguing we can’t ever know because “we weren’t present” makes no more sense than arguing we can’t know if George Washington really existed because no one still living was alive back then. In both cases, we evaluate the evidence.
If it involves a net energy of 0, it doesn’t have to come from anywhere.
Nonsense. You do not have to be outside of something to explain it. We can study the weather system just fine from inside. Sometimes a platform outside is convenient, but it is not necessary.
And your problem with this is? It may be that the natural constants have to be as they are, or it may be that a set created a universe where intelligent beings wonder about such things. We don’t know yet.
A polite request. Can those of you arguing about what atheism means look up the umpteen thread already existing on this subject? I suspect you could have a thread on this consisting solely of links to posts containing points already made.
An observation. In any thread where atheism is discussed someone will post
or words to that effect. The thread will then be at least partially hijacked into this discussion.
I did read it. I just reiterated it because there seem to be so many people who don’t know the definition.
I don’t see any reason for you to be rude and sarcastic here. What’s your problem?
Boy, you’re really hot under the collar about this, aren’t you?
Point of order: According to Pliny is the one who was trying to “corset” the definition. Remember this?
I don’t care for the school of thought that says if one is an atheist, that one must have a positive belief that there is no God. THAT’S what this is about. That’s why MEBuckner objected to that definition, and that’s why I objected to it as well. We don’t care for people telling us what we believe.
I don’t want to quibble with you about how many definitions of “agnostic” there are. Yes, American Heritage has adopted the more informal usage as a legitimate definition, but if you check dictionary.com, that is the only cited source that includes that definition. My Oxford American Dictionary I have here at home doesn’t contain that alternate definition either.
But enough of the silly semantics game. The POINT is that it is incorrect to say, “If you allow at all for the possibility of God, then you’re not an atheist.” That’s all I really care about.
Actually, everything we know about the universe suggests it is not imperative that it have a “cause”. What do we know about the universe? We know that it has the properties of spacial dimensions and of time. And we know that as time increases, the universe is expanding. And we know that if we follow the relationship between time and expansion backwards, that the universe would exist in a single point at T=0. Now, what is time? We’re not exactly sure, but it’s helpful to think of it as simply another dimension. Time is a property of the universe. And when we speak about cause and effect, the cause must precede the effect in time, right? Without time, there cannot be cause and effect. At t=0, there is no time; therefore there is no cause and effect. Think of t=0 as a place rather than a time. It is the place in the universe where the property of time is absent.
So it is entirely possible that the universe simply exists. To suggest it had to have been caused is to suggest that there was a time before the universe. But since time is a property of the universe, it is nonsensical to refer to a time before it. It’s like going to Lincoln Center to hear Beethoven’s Fifth in c minor, then asking what key Lincoln Center is in. It’s not in a key, because keys are properties of musical compositions, and it’s nonsensical to refer to keys outside of music.
In short, there is nothing instrinsic about the universe that suggests it had to be caused. That doesn’t mean it can’t have been caused; it’s just not essential given the properties of the universe.
Besides which, what special properties does God have that would make him the one thing that doesn’t need a cause? I haven’t heard an argument yet that doesn’t in effect simply rely on either magic or mere say-so.
There’s a dual standard here. The universe needs a creator to explain why it exists - but God doesn’t need a creator to explain why he exists. The universe cannot be completely explained by scientific laws so God must exist to fill in the gaps - God can’t be explained by scientific laws but there’s no need to fill in the gaps. If God can exist without a creator or a complete explanation why can’t the universe?
If you define infinite regress that way. It certainly by definition concludes that there can NOT be an infinite regression of moved movers, which is how “infinite regress” is typically understood, I think.
Well, you can, but what we understand of the universe and how its physical laws work is that everything is a potential mover (once it itself is moved), and everything is in motion (or has been moved)–as far as ol’ Tom has defined “movers.” Nothing comes in to being without a mover. Nothing changes without a mover. If you want to follow this physical regression back a point where there nothing but an unmoved physical state of the universe–what set it into motion? “Second movers do not move save through being moved by a first mover.” And just as important, “It is therefore impossible that, in one and the same way, something could be moving and moved, or that something move itself.” Do you see a flaw in Aquinas’s logic? Or do you take on faith that there’s a physical explanation in contradiction of what we currently understand about how physical entities move in our universe? Or something else?
So, I still believe that leaves us with the same 3 choices: an infinite regress (a logical absurdity), an unmoved mover, or a flaw in Tom A.'s syllogism.
But what you say applies only to things in the universe that we have encountered. We have no evidence either way to conclude that the universe itself, as a whole, was or was not created by itself or an external force. We don’t know of any laws that really apply to the entire universe, just objects within it. And IIRC, most if not all of the scientific laws we have discovered break down near the Big Bang.
An unmoved mover? Why would we assume that there is only one first mover? For example, wouldn’t each instance of free will (were one to believe in free will) be an unmoved mover?
Tom’s flaw is that a & b are both logical absurdities. That was Bert’s point.
(So long as we’re calling St. Thomas of Aquinas “Tom”, I think I should be able to call Bertrand Russell “Bert”.)
You refute the former based on the absurdity of “turtles all the way down” (as it were). Others have been showing that the prime, unmoved mover is an absurdity based on what we know of physics and logic. If Hawkings is right, the universe may be self-contained. That is, it is it’s own mover. There is no infinite regression and no prime mover.
Even granting that there is an unmoved mover
doesn’t prove that God = the unmoved mover. It merely states that somewhere in the chain there must be a beginning. But that beginning could be the creater of both God and the universe, in serial or in parallel, plus Thor, Odin and all the rest.
You can only tie God in by asserting that God is the only thing that doesn’t fit the conditions of 1). That makes the whole thing sort of circular. That is, this proof of an infinite and non-contingent being relies on the tacit assumption that God is the only infinite and non-contingernt being.
In addition, nothing in the proof requires that there be no steps between the unmoved mover and the creation of the universe. Since the location of the unmoved mover is arbitrary, it could be anywhere including at the start of the universe itself, as has been said.
Agreed on all counts. Well put.
Actually, no, not in the least. Simply pointing out (for the second time in this thread alone) a pet peeve of mine. And that’s posters seemingly ignoring what’s already been discussed to make the same point over and over again.
And do you remember this and this? Not to mention this? Seems to me three posts rebutting Pliny’s simplistic labeling and usage of the word “agnostic” were more than enough to put that canard to bed.
By the bye, we are on the same side of the coin in the overall debate presented in this thread. Again, just asking people to read the threads and avoid repeating over and over points that have already been covered – and have little to do with the OP anyway.
As to “problems” I have many. None having to do with exchanging bytes on a MB though. Would that life was that easy.
Yep, I suppose that’s true. So are you suggesting we take it on faith that there is some physical explanation, one that blows away our current understanding of how the physical universe works? Or do we assume that our understanding of the “causality” of the universe is correct, which means that there must be an unmoved mover? The latter seems more satisfying to me, but of course that doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone.
Not following you. Why would exercising free will render one an unmoved mover?