Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
why must this uncaused cause be a being?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.
Atheism is not a condemnation of God. It is an absence of belief regarding the existence (or nonexistence) of God.Never said it was an indictment on atheism; more of a indictment on atheism's widespread condemnation of God as a fairy tale.
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.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.
That's into the nature of the Uncaused Cause, I said something about it earlier.why must this uncaused cause be a being?
That's the answer to the question.That would be a good reason to reject the question "Why is there something?" as nonsense.
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.
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.I honestly don't understand why.
It seems like needless, arrogant anthropomorphisation to me.
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.
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.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, 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.
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).There is a difference; the three fairy tales you mentioned don't make sense and never have.
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.I frankly find it insulting when such comparisons are made, and they are most likely meant to be.
Well, purpose, at least.Why characterise it as "will", though? I think that's a bit misleading.
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.
Actually, they don't make any sense. You cannot logically defend mother goose.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.
You hit the nail on the head.I honestly don't understand why.
It seems like needless, arrogant anthropomorphisation to me.
The chain of cause?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?
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.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 how can it cause if it does not have purpose to?But the first cause does not need anything. It does just one single thing: 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."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?
So, then, then are you saying nothing implies chaos?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...
What do you mean by 'logically defend'?Actually, they don't make any sense. You cannot logically defend mother goose.
...
You cannot validly defend mother goose.
By all means, explain how Christian mythology differs from other myths.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.
No, but neither does it point to God existing. That's the point. There's no reason to believe, so they don't.And all the evidence does not point to God not existing.
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.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.
If it is one, how can it have components?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.
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.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.
If the law of non-contradiction does not have any relevance... how can you make the statement you just did?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?
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.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?