A basic question about ID

[Matthew777]

If everything must have a cause eternal beings can't exist.

Everything must have a cause within the natural universe. God is by definition an eternal being and by definition beyond nature.

Peace.

 

[caravelair]

Everything must have a cause within the natural universe. God is by definition an eternal being and by definition beyond nature.

how convenient.

 

[Matthew777]

how convenient.

Why would the architect of nature need to follow the laws of nature?

Peace.

 

[caravelair]

Why would the architect of nature need to follow the laws of nature?

Peace.

i am skeptical of claims that are consistent with any evidence we could possibly ever find. they all seem equally unlikely to me.

 

[Matthew777]

i am skeptical of claims that are consistent with any evidence we could possibly ever find. they all seem equally unlikely to me.

If the universe had a first cause then it must be eternal and uncaused. Otherwise, there would be infinite regress.

Peace.

 

[caravelair]

If the universe had a first cause then it must be eternal and uncaused. Otherwise, there would be infinite regress.

even if that were true, it would not mean that this "first cause" is a sentient being.

also, it is possible that some things happen spontaniously, as quantum mechanics seems to suggest.

it is also possible that since time began at the big bang, the causality of a beginning actually makes no sense.

 

[Matthew777]

even if that were true, it would not mean that this "first cause" is a sentient being.

How could an uncaused, eternal being not be sentient? Could one explain how matter could just arise on its own given that matter cannot be created or destroyed?

Peace.

 

[caravelair]

How could an uncaused, eternal being not be sentient?

Peace.

who said anything about a being? you just said a cause, that could be anything.

 

[Matthew777]

who said anything about a being? you just said a cause, that could be anything.

The cause would have to be uncased, to be uncaused it must be eternal.

Peace.

 

[Patzak]

Everything must have a cause within the natural universe.

"Everything must have a cause" and "everything has a cause within the natural universe" are statements of two completely different kinds. The first one is axiomatic and doesn't neccessarily have any connection with the actual situation. From the first statement, it logically follows that there can be no uncaused events and that there is no "uncause first cause". Infinite regression is not a problem for logic, while a contradiction certainly is.

On the other hand, what you're claiming (that everything must have a cause within the natural universe) is an observation pretending to be an axiom. There is absolutely nothing that says everything within the universe MUST have a cause. You're free to make an observation that everything within the known universe has a cause (although that observation would go against certain findings of quantum mechanics), but you cannot use this information to make a leap to an absolute statement like the one you're making.

 

[caravelair]

The cause would have to be uncased, to be uncaused it must be eternal.

Peace.

still doesn't make it a being, does it? you have also ignored the other alternatives i presented.

 

[Code-Monkey]

If causality is a law, then everything must have a cause. To say that one particular thing has no cause is to dismiss the law of causality.

Actually that's not true. To say that causality is a law would only suggest that all effects have causes.

 

[Patzak]

Actually that's not true. To say that causality is a law would only suggest that all effects have causes.

But to say that the law of causality only applies to effects reduces the law to nothing but a different way of putting forth a definition. IOW, to say that the law of causality only applies to effects and still call it a law is like saying there's a law of un-marriedness but it only applies to single people.

You either have a law that states everything has a cause, or you have a definition of a cause as something which produces an effect and of effect as that which neccessarily has a cause.

 

[Phred]

Once it is demonstrated that the universe had a beginning, one wonders whether an eternal being caused it.

I certainly don't. If the universe had a beginning (and the evidence at this point suggests this is true) then the cause could be anything. To make the leap from "cause" to "eternal being by definintion outside of nature" takes an imagination more than anything else. Imagination and previous belief. There's certainly no evidence to suggest such a thing.

.
​

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually that's not true. To say that causality is a law would only suggest that all effects have causes.

A law is defined as a consistent observation that is thought to be universal. Causality does not fit this definition. There are many observations, such as radioactive decay, that do not have a known cause. Therefore, causality is not a law.

Remember that laws are models of reality. What happens in reality trumps law.

 

[Code-Monkey]

A law is defined as a consistent observation that is thought to be universal. Causality does not fit this definition. There are many observations, such as radioactive decay, that do not have a known cause. Therefore, causality is not a law.

Remember that laws are models of reality. What happens in reality trumps law.

So it's your opinion that our ignorance of a cause means that there is no cause?