Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be. Also, by definition, God is uncaused.
The problem is that when making deductive arguments, esp. those based upon a priori definitions, there is nothing that would necessitate that the regression not end at nature itself. Energy itself can be defined as neither created nor destroyed only transformed eternally, which by the way is actually evidenced by the first law. If there cannot be an infinite number of causes then energy itself can be defined as eternal.
Furthermore, defining God as eternal to get out of the problem above is arbitrary and a form of special pleading. Everything needs a cause except my God. And why or how do you know this - uhmm You don't you just define god that way and insert him into the argument so that it works - WOW Brilliant!
Lastly, with regard to this issue, it implies a composition fallacy. It uses the fact that every-thing WITHIN the universe has a cause and therefore the Universe (or in my case ENERGY) itself must be caused. That is applying a fact to the parts or forms to the whole substance of those forms. That's a fallacy as well.
Yes--it's a fair analysis of the argument. That is the common response that people come back with.
Yes--it does assume that the universe itself had a cause, not just what the universe contains.
Quote:
2) Now to the premises: Let's look at the first 3:
Things exist.
It is possible for those things to not exist.
Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
If 1 is true and it is then surely God must be some-thing. Otherwise you are just arbitrarily defining God otherwise. This is also, again, special pleading.
As such it is then possible for God not to exist according to premise 2.
As such, if God exist, it must have been caused according to premise 3.
Which brings the argument back to the problem mentioned by your link.
Except that God is not part of the universe -- he exists outside of it. As the agent that caused it, he cannot be part of it.
Quote:
As to premises 4. Nothing necessitates it to be God - as noted it could well be Energy is eternal and as such un-caused.
Premise 5 only gets you to an un-caused-cause. Again, Energy fits just as well. And the fact that is does not necessitate God is clear from the introduction of your link:
The argument simply states there is a cause -- it does not identify who/what the cause is. When you start looking at the issues of necessary and sufficient cause, though, one concludes it must be an intelligent, personal being.
Quote:
This un-caused-cause is asserted to be God. Emphasis Mine!
I am surprised you used this weak CA. More could be said but I am bored with stupidity. And that was in my own words - I am sure I could find a professional demolition of this miserable tripe.
Also, deductive arguments don't necessarily correspond to reality esp. those that use special pleading and a priori definitions.
You haven't answered it yet. You've pointed out some issues you have with it, but I've easily explained them.
If you'd like to attempt to digest that so you can discuss it in your own words, I'm game. Otherwise I'll just go get another link and let my expert beat up your expert, and there won't be anything accomplished.
Vizio, I admire your tenacity, man, but truth be told, if I was just a casual HONEST observer, your special pleadings hold no merit at all. The whole idea, basically wrapped up this way, "well, since I/we don't know, MY personal god must have done it," is really VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY weak, my friend. Raifus and Shiloh rained all over that parade and eloquently so.
You've been misreading what I'm saying, then. I'd encourage you to re-read my arguments. The Cosmological Argument does not identify WHO or WHAT the cause/creator is. It only points to the fact that there is one.
Quote:
I realize it is YOUR personal faith and you are certainly entitled to it, but once you toss it out on a PUBLIC forum, expect counterarguments and expect them to be more intense when an apparent REFUSAL to "see the light" is pretty must evident.
I'd encourage you to actually read and understand what others are arguing before you attempt to correct them.
My mother and father. Didn't you learn that in school?
And this is why it's difficult to accomplish any kind of rational discussion on a message board. For every person that wants to actually discuss it, we have 27 people that want to just make jokes and derail it.
The CA quickly fails on two points of its own argument .
First , it assumes point 3 is correct, and that everything that exists must have been created . This is not proven, and cannot be proven, and yet this forms the entire basis for the argument .
Second, even if assumed to be correct , point 3 wishes to exclude God from that argument .
So the CA argument is based on both an unprovable assumption as the lynchpin for the argument , and is dishonest in that it refuses to subject the primary being of it's own belief it is arguing for to the rules of its own argument .
The CA quickly fails on two points of its own argument .
First , it assumes point 3 is correct, and that everything that exists must have been created . This is not proven, and cannot be proven, and yet this forms the entire basis for the argument .
Name one thing that isn't. Can you do that?
Quote:
Second, even if assumed to be correct , point 3 wishes to exclude God from that argument .
Because it's a necessary, logical point. There needs to be an uncaused cause.
How can something be a part of its own creation?
Quote:
So the CA argument is based on both an unprovable assumption as the lynchpin for the argument , and is dishonest in that it refuses to subject the primary being of it's own belief it is arguing for to the rules of its own argument .
You've raised a couple of points, and both have been answered.
Prove that the original energy of the BB is not eternal . Clearly everything in existence regresses back to that, but that doesn't mean the energy is created .
Please proceed with proving that the energy from which all material is formed is not eternally existing .
Quote:
Because it's a necessary, logical point. There needs to be an uncaused cause.
How can something be a part of its own creation?
I'm sorry, but the argument " because I need it to be this way" is not adequate . You want to play by different rules than you put on your opponent . No one is saying God has to be apart of its own creation . Let's say your God existed for a minimum of a billion years before it created our universe , so we have this time separation between the two events that makes them separate items . Now, what created God ? If you say nothing , God always has existed , then you have disproven your own claim that nothing can exist without being created .
Can you not grasp this ?
Theists deny their own argument when they use terms like Uncreated Creator or Uncaused Causer. You have just admitted things CAN exist without being created . Is this not evident to you ?
Quote:
You've raised a couple of points, and both have been answered.
next?
Not even close , my friend . Please return to both questions and try again.
Last edited by wallflash; 06-25-2016 at 08:06 AM..
Prove that the original energy of the BB is not eternal . Clearly everything in existence regresses back to that, but that doesn't mean the energy is created .
Please proceed with proving that the energy from which all material is formed is not eternally existing .
Go on. Please explain how it could be. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics seems to indicate that it would not be eternal.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but the argument " because I need it to be this way" is not adequate . You want to play by different rules . No one is saying God has to be apart of its own creation . Let's say your God existed for a minimum of a billion years before it created our universe , so we have this time separation between the two events that makes them separate items . Now, what created God ? If you say nothing , God always has existed , then you have disproven your own claim that nothing can exist without being created .
Can you not grasp this ?
It's called logic. Everything that exists has a cause. It's a basic assumption of how the universe works, and has been observed since time began. That cause is not part of the thing that is caused. I had eggs for breakfast this morning. My wife could walk into the room and know SOMEONE made them because they exist. They didn't make themselves, nor was their maker part of them.
The same thing works on the scale of the universe's origin. It exists, so something that is not part of it caused it.
But once we leave the realm of discussing the universe, why would we assume the rules are the same? We've never observed anything and measured something that is not part of the universe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
