Re: Conversation with God

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:15:53 +0100, John Blake
<johnremovethisblake@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>On 3 Aug 2005 14:42:56 +1000, David Ould <davidould@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>John,
>>
>>> The first cause is not fact, only speculation. There is nothing to
>>> suggest a beginning unless you maintain that the birth of the universe
>>> was the beginning of everything. It would be impossible IMO to find
>>> any evidence for that.
>>>
>>
>>Of course, which is why Aristotle and those coming after him (e.g. Aquinas)
>>argue in the way that they do. Perhaps you might actually address his argument
>>rather than simply dismissing it?
>
>Ok, lets have a look at it:
>
> 1. All things are caused.
> 2. Nothing can cause itself.
> 3. Therefore, everything that is caused is caused by something
>other than itself.
> 4. A causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time.

The argument doesn't refer to time. Words like 'prior' and 'order'
refer to logical priority, not temporal.

> 5. If the causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time,
>there must be a first cause.
> 6. The word God means uncaused first cause.
> 7. Therefore, God exists.
>
>1. Is an assertion. I agree with the principle, but it's not
>necessarily so as recent research tends to suggest. I'm not a
>scientist so can't really comment further.
>
>2. Sounds reasonable.
>
>3. Ok
>
>4. Why not? This is pure assertion.

Because an explanation that is never complete (and is, in principle,
uncompletable) is not an explanation.

>5. Not valid as it is based on the assumption in 4.
>
>6. If that's what you think.
>
>7. Only if you agree with 4.
>
>This tries to do away with the possibility of everything having
>existed continuously and having no beginning.

No, it has nothing to do with origins

>It fails because it needs
>to employ two untestable assertions: Firstly, that everything is
>caused and secondly that there was a first cause.

The first is quite a reasonable postulate (certainly was for Aquinas,
who hadn't come across the Copenhagen interpretation). The second is
not an assertion but a deduction, based on the principle that an
infinite regress of explanations is no explanation.

>I wonder why some find the existence of an eternal super-being more
>likely than that everything is eternal.

You are not only misunderstanding the argument by making it temporal,
you are also confusing two uses of the word 'eternal'.

--
Alec Brady
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... your assertion that EMR comes ... EMR comes always from resonance is *totally* baseless. ... Hint: that's the thing which you keep ignoring. ... explanation, and then came several additional experiments to ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... your assertion that EMR comes ... EMR comes always from resonance is *totally* baseless. ... Hint: that's the thing which you keep ignoring. ... explanation, and then came several additional experiments to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Jechs Set Theory
    ... Depends on the assertion. ... this may be available in principle. ... mathematics (I don't opine as to what interests other people have or as ... A fine fellow, this Dr. Freitznautzer. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... That is life from non-life. ... If plants don't qualify as "life", then your assertion warrants serious ... When absorbed by the plant, they become part of a living system. ... A "principle" which is falsified by experiment in quantum physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Misunderstanding Bateson
    ... the dormitive explanation actually falsifies the ... >>a generality that opium contains a dormitive principle, ... > to put someone to sleep". ... render the use of dormitive principle in a definition legitimate. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading