A question for atheists and agnostics

[ranmaonehalf]

So would you say there is a Being who created existence, though?





There is reason to believe for the existence of a Being which created the universe, an Uncaused Cause.
That's the first step.

why must this uncaused cause be a being?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Never said it was an indictment on atheism; more of a indictment on atheism's widespread condemnation of God as a fairy tale.

Atheism is not a condemnation of God. It is an absence of belief regarding the existence (or nonexistence) of God.

Fairy tales provide a useful analogy: the atheist doesn't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in Mother Goose, or the Tooth Fairy, or Father Christmas.

 

[cantata]

the atheist doesn't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in Mother Goose, or the Tooth Fairy, or Father Christmas.

Careful.

Many atheists don't believe in God for the same reason...

 

[MaxP]

Atheism is not a condemnation of God. It is an absence of belief regarding the existence (or nonexistence) of God.

Fairy tales provide a useful analogy: the atheist doesn't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in Mother Goose, or the Tooth Fairy, or Father Christmas.

There is a difference; the three fairy tales you mentioned don't make sense and never have.
I frankly find it insulting when such comparisons are made, and they are most likely meant to be.

 

[MaxP]

why must this uncaused cause be a being?

That's into the nature of the Uncaused Cause, I said something about it earlier.
But most basically, it has to be purposeful, as a start.

 

[MaxP]

That would be a good reason to reject the question "Why is there something?" as nonsense.

That's the answer to the question.

Then we gotta try to determine what eternal existence implies.

 

[cantata]

That's into the nature of the Uncaused Cause, I said something about it earlier.
But most basically, it has to be purposeful, as a start.

I honestly don't understand why.

It seems like needless, arrogant anthropomorphisation to me.

 

[MaxP]

I honestly don't understand why.

It seems like needless, arrogant anthropomorphisation to me.

Well, if the Uncaused Cause didn't want to cause what It did, it wouldn't have. It would simply exist, unmoving, unchanging, for all eternity. It had to have at least some measure of will to cause, because there is nothing else but It in the beginning. Nothing to set it off, It had to set everything else off, which It would not do by accident. There would be no accidents.

 

[Skaloop]

There is a difference; the three fairy tales you mentioned don't make sense and never have.

Which is exactly the point; from an atheistic viewpoint, it's not a difference.

I frankly find it insulting when such comparisons are made, and they are most likely meant to be.

The comparison is not between the objects of belief, but between the non-belief itself.

 

[MaxP]

Which is exactly the point; from an atheistic viewpoint, it's not a difference.
The comparison is not between the objects of belief, but between the non-belief itself.

Well, you have a right not to believe, but the existence of God is far more valid an argument than that for the existence of mother goose.

Unless you mean because you can't hear/see/touch/taste/smell God?

 

[cantata]

Well, if the Uncaused Cause didn't want to cause what It did, it wouldn't have. It would simply exist, unmoving, unchanging, for all eternity. It had to have at least some measure of will to cause, because there is nothing else but It in the beginning. Nothing to set it off, It had to set everything else off, which It would not do by accident. There would be no accidents.

Why characterise it as "will", though? I think that's a bit misleading.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is a difference; the three fairy tales you mentioned don't make sense and never have.

They make perfect sense. It just so happens that all the evidence points to their being false. That is, there is no reason to believe them. Likewise, the atheist sees no reason to believe the claims of Christianity (or, indeed, any other theistic religion).

I frankly find it insulting when such comparisons are made, and they are most likely meant to be.

Then you have a persecution complex. The comparison is made to help Christians understand why atheists don't believe in their god. Without being too condescending... get over yourself.

 

[MaxP]

Why characterise it as "will", though? I think that's a bit misleading.

Well, purpose, at least.
I suppose you are right in that the argument for intelligence and will is different.

 

[Freodin]

Well, if the Uncaused Cause didn't want to cause what It did, it wouldn't have. It would simply exist, unmoving, unchanging, for all eternity. It had to have at least some measure of will to cause, because there is nothing else but It in the beginning. Nothing to set it off, It had to set everything else off, which It would not do by accident. There would be no accidents.

There would be no will either.

The problem with all these "logical" arguments is that the presuppose certain facts... like a temporal causation chain in this case. But that just begs the question: why does this exist?

Every possible answer has to follow the line "It just has to... because if it didn´t, it would be different."

So basically you define the "first cause" in a way you need to keep your own prejudices intact.

"...because there is nothing else but It in the beginning. Nothing to set it off, It had to set everything else off..."

Here we can see it: a formal, correct line of reasoning... and false: if "something" had to happen/exist/be in a certain way for "the first cause " to do its job, it would in inself be "the first cause".

But the first cause does not need anything. It does just one single thing: cause.

"There would be no accidents."

Why not? What would there be to keep accidents from happening? Do you think that such concept as the "law of non-contradiction" have any relevance here?

You wanted to know what I meant when I said: "Yes and no... nothing exists and non-exists".
When there is really "nothing", there is also nothing to keep it from being everything as well. You´d have arrived that no description in a human language or human thought could fit... I´d call it "chaos".

Many old cultures had a "primal chaos" as a starting point...

 

[MaxP]

They make perfect sense. It just so happens that all the evidence points to their being false. That is, there is no reason to believe them. Likewise, the atheist sees no reason to believe the claims of Christianity (or, indeed, any other theistic religion).


Then you have a persecution complex. The comparison is made to help Christians understand why atheists don't believe in their god. Without being too condescending... get over yourself.

Actually, they don't make any sense. You cannot logically defend mother goose.
The comparison is made not to help Christians "understand," I understand perfectly well why you do not believe in God. It's just not the same at all.
You cannot validly defend mother goose. And all the evidence does not point to God not existing.

 

[Braunwyn]

I honestly don't understand why.

It seems like needless, arrogant anthropomorphisation to me.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[MaxP]

There would be no will either.

The problem with all these "logical" arguments is that the presuppose certain facts... like a temporal causation chain in this case. But that just begs the question: why does this exist?

The chain of cause?
Because anything that has the possibility of being and not being has cause.
Everything we know has the possibility of being and not being.

Every possible answer has to follow the line "It just has to... because if it didn´t, it would be different."

So basically you define the "first cause" in a way you need to keep your own prejudices intact.

"...because there is nothing else but It in the beginning. Nothing to set it off, It had to set everything else off..."

Here we can see it: a formal, correct line of reasoning... and false: if "something" had to happen/exist/be in a certain way for "the first cause " to do its job, it would in inself be "the first cause".

No, it would be a component of the first cause; the causation would not be caused by the component, but the component would contribute to it. The component alone, however, would be non relevant. In the first cause, also, is simplicity, all the first cause has is what it needs to exist and to cause, and there is no distinction in the components. They are one, to form the first cause.

But the first cause does not need anything. It does just one single thing: cause.

But how can it cause if it does not have purpose to?
If it had no reason to cause, with nothing to react or combine with, there would simply be a potential Cause for all eternity, and we can see there is not just that.

"There would be no accidents."

Why not? What would there be to keep accidents from happening? Do you think that such concept as the "law of non-contradiction" have any relevance here?

Accidents would not happen because accidents are two things effecting the other to produce an unintended effect. There would be no two things to cause unintended effect.
And no, I don't think the law of non-contradiction to have relevance. Do you?

You wanted to know what I meant when I said: "Yes and no... nothing exists and non-exists".
When there is really "nothing", there is also nothing to keep it from being everything as well. You´d have arrived that no description in a human language or human thought could fit... I´d call it "chaos".

Many old cultures had a "primal chaos" as a starting point...

So, then, then are you saying nothing implies chaos?
I would say it does not; nothing implies nothing, just void.
Because space is a void does that mean it is going to become all the elements it does not possess?

 

[MaxP]

You hit the nail on the head.

See my response.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, they don't make any sense. You cannot logically defend mother goose.
...
You cannot validly defend mother goose.

What do you mean by 'logically defend'?

The comparison is made not to help Christians "understand," I understand perfectly well why you do not believe in God. It's just not the same at all.

By all means, explain how Christian mythology differs from other myths.

And all the evidence does not point to God not existing.

No, but neither does it point to God existing. That's the point. There's no reason to believe, so they don't.

 

[Freodin]

The chain of cause?
Because anything that has the possibility of being and not being has cause.
Everything we know has the possibility of being and not being.

Inductive logic is not your friend here. If everything we know has the possibility of being and not being, then either this has to apply for the "first cause" as well... or we have something that we know - we are talking about it - but does not have this possibility.

So what you wanted to say is "everything that we know except the first cause..."...

Yes, in a way I agree. But in a different way: the first cause is the only "thing" that has every possibility... even that of being and not being at the same "time".

No, it would be a component of the first cause; the causation would not be caused by the component, but the component would contribute to it. The component alone, however, would be non relevant. In the first cause, also, is simplicity, all the first cause has is what it needs to exist and to cause, and there is no distinction in the components. They are one, to form the first cause.

If it is one, how can it have components?

The first cause is not "formed". It cannot be decribed, except for "it is the cause".

But how can it cause if it does not have purpose to?
If it had no reason to cause, with nothing to react or combine with, there would simply be a potential Cause for all eternity, and we can see there is not just that.

Inductive logic again. You only need a reason (or cause) when you go from one state to another. The first cause did not change states. It did not create or act or will... it simply is the cause.

Accidents would not happen because accidents are two things effecting the other to produce an unintended effect. There would be no two things to cause unintended effect.
And no, I don't think the law of non-contradiction to have relevance. Do you?

If the law of non-contradiction does not have any relevance... how can you make the statement you just did?
This law states that something cannot be it´s own negation in existence... so, yes, there would not be two things to cause unintended effect... and there would be.

So, then, then are you saying nothing implies chaos?
I would say it does not; nothing implies nothing, just void.
Because space is a void does that mean it is going to become all the elements it does not possess?

That is a) a lack of imagination and b) a wrong line of reasoning. "Nothing" cannot be "void space"... because then you would have "space". Do away with the "space", do away with the rules that tell you that tell you what something is... and you will arrive at a state that you simply cannot describe: chaos. Not nothing, not something - and everything. Simply undescribable.