A question for atheists and agnostics

[pantless rationalist]

Everything is moved, but cannot be only circular.
Therefore, there must be a mover - an uncaused cause.
It is a logical conclusion when examines the alternative.

If a god can be eternal, why not matter and energy? That's really all the universe would need to be created, so why can these two things not be the "uncaused cause".

 

[MaxP]

And I suppose the second step is to conclude irrational things about God and believe everything the Catholic Church tells you?

But i suppose i'll have to wait for the 2nd lesson for that.

No, the second step would be to attempt to ascertain the nature of God from what is known to us.
We can determine He is immovable, eternal, necessarily exists, everlasting, has no succession, is simple, is His own essence, is not a genus, is united, is not a body, has infinite power, and more, but I suppose i have already said enough for you to object to.

 

[Braunwyn]

If a god can be eternal, why not matter and energy? That's really all the universe would need to be created, so why can these two things not be the "uncaused cause".

great question

 

[MaxP]

You can not, however, do so with the argument you have proffered thus far.

Perhaps I am offering an incomplete look, but I assumed you would all be objecting to copy/paste, so I paraphrase.

Their arguments were notably more sophisticated than yours. There are multiple ways to construct a valid cosmological argument, but none that I consider sound.

Sound means the argument is true and valid.
What do you find not true or valid about the ways reached?

It is worth noting here that 'big bang' cosmology does not commit us to a "beginning of all things."

Noted.

 

[quatona]

Everything is moved, but cannot be only circular.
Therefore, there must be a mover - an uncaused cause.
It is a logical conclusion when examines the alternative.

The self-contradiction is so obvious that it hurts.
If there can/must be uncaused causes the premise that "everything is moved" is inaccurate.

Does everything need to be caused? If so, there can´t be an uncaused cause. If not so, the problem you are trying to solve by introducing a "god" doesn´t even exist. E.g. more parsimonously we could simply assume that the universe doesn´t have/need a cause.

 

[MaxP]

If a god can be eternal, why not matter and energy? That's really all the universe would need to be created, so why can these two things not be the "uncaused cause".

Matter and energy require something acting upon it to do things.
Energy is the ability to do work, so lacking in energy is the worker.
Matter is what work is done on, so again lacking is the worker.

 

[Braunwyn]

No, the second step would be to attempt to ascertain the nature of God from what is known to us.
We can determine He is immovable, eternal, necessarily exists, everlasting, has no succession, is simple, is His own essence, is not a genus, is united, is not a body, has infinite power, and more, but I suppose i have already said enough for you to object to.

The fact that you call it a he says enough.

 

[MaxP]

The self-contradiction is so obvious that it hurts.
If there can/must be uncaused causes the premise that "everything is moved" is inaccurate.

Does everything need to be caused? If so, there can´t be an uncaused cause. If not so, the problem you are trying to solve by introducing a "god" doesn´t even exist.

We can say there is a Thing that cannot be moved - but by Itself.
Also, as noted, perhaps it is better to say all that is natural is moved.

Everything that can be or not be is affected by cause or change, ie, everything natural.

 

[MaxP]

The fact that you call it a he says enough.

What, me calling It what I want offends you?

 

[MaxP]

I don't understand the question.

We exist. Period.

So our existence has simply always existed?

 

[Aianna]

A few factors lead to my lack of belief in the supernatural as a whole.

There was never a "Eureka! There is no supernatural!" moment for me; it was a gradual transition. My parents are "mixed" in that my mother is a Christian and my father is an atheist. Despite my mother telling me these things were true (and I took her on her word at a younger age), I was never very religious and always felt that supernatural explanations just replaced one unknown with another. I'd rather admit that I simply don't know the answer to something than accept a proposition which has the potential to answer the question if that proposition doesn't have verifiable evidence.

I'm certainly not claiming that I feel that I have to be absolutely certain about anything; I acknowledge that it is indeed possible for a deity to exist but I'd need much more evidence and solid definition of the god for which you're arguing. If you're arguing for a first-cause deistic god that doesn't interfere, then it seems fairly unfalsifiable and is at best based on definitions ("whatever the first cause was, I'll define it as "God.""). If you want to call the first cause "God" then it's merely a name; even if there is a specific first cause that caused everything else, I can't see how that is necessarily supernatural (and the whole idea of my position is that I don't believe in the supernatural).

 

[pantless rationalist]

Matter and energy require something acting upon it to do things.
Energy is the ability to do work, so lacking in energy is the worker.
Matter is what work is done on, so again lacking is the worker.

You assume that the "worker" must be some anthropomorphic entity, which is not true. Chemical reactions occur without this kind of "worker" intervention all the time (the formation of stars, for instance).

 

[Nathan45]

Maybe it works a little better that way, but it still has plenty of holes.

Of course, the first thing I´d ask for would be a definition of "natural".

several definitions work... "that which is governed by cause and effect" is the simplest. You could probably add "temporal" to that definition because as far as i know cause and effect requires time to work.

We don´t have a problem defining god into existence, mind you. I just have to prove that there is a monitor on my desk and then say "and we call this monitor god" and - poof - atheism and agnosticism are refuted.

You're right, it's all semantic nonsense. If I took a stricter definition of God I'd call myself an atheist. anyways...

I think the mind/body problem is actually a stronger argument for the existence of the super-natural.

If "free will" exists, then every conscious action is it's own uncaused cause. That is to say, either your mind is governed entirely by the deterministic/probabilistic chemical reactions in your brain, or it isn't and we actually do have free will.

As far as I can tell, free will does exist. I seem to be perfectly in control. Or maybe it's all a trick, who knows?

It seems possible, and this is probably the only scientific hypothesis, that everything going on in my head is actually probabilistic and i'm simply watching a movie script of my own actions, only thinking that i'm in control. The problem is this still doesn't nullify the existence of the Mind apart from the body, because even if, I, the observer, am not in control, I, the observer, still exist to observe.

The First Cause argument focuses on why the universe exists, which is impossible to answer as far as i can tell. The mind/body problem is another impossible to answer question as to why anyone is able to consciously observe and interact the universe.

And i don't think this problem will ever be resolved, it's not like we can build a big telescope and discover that the universe has a Main() function or a user interface.

/end ramblings.

 

[quatona]

We can say there is a Thing that cannot be moved - but by Itself.

Sure you can make a lot of statements and assumptions. But an assumption does not an argument make.
If there can be things that cannot be moved (except by themselves) the problem you are trying to solve doesn´t exist, in the first place.

Also, as noted, perhaps it is better to say all that is natural is moved.

Define "natural".

Everything that can be or not be is affected by cause or change, ie, everything natural.

So your definition of "natural" is "everything that can be or not be" (as opposed to "necessarily is", I guess)?
How praytell do you determine what "can be or not be"?

 

[pantless rationalist]

Everything that can be or not be is affected by cause or change, ie, everything natural.

While this would make your argument more consistent, it begs the question for the existence of the supernatural

 

[MaxP]

I'm certainly not claiming that I feel that I have to be absolutely certain about anything; I acknowledge that it is indeed possible for a deity to exist but I'd need much more evidence and solid definition of the god for which you're arguing. If you're arguing for a first-cause deistic god that doesn't interfere, then it seems fairly unfalsifiable and is at best based on definitions ("whatever the first cause was, I'll define it as "God.""). If you want to call the first cause "God" then it's merely a name; even if there is a specific first cause that caused everything else, I can't see how that is necessarily supernatural (and the whole idea of my position is that I don't believe in the supernatural).

"God," is merely a name; to continue past that would get into determining Its nature.

 

[quatona]

Hey Nathan,
interesting post, but I´d like to stay focussed for the time being if you don´t mind.
The OP asked why someone would say that the existence of god is unknowable. I gave a couple of reasons, and in response to them you explain how the arguments presented for the existence of god are based on the unknowable and impossible to answer.

 

[MaxP]

While this would make your argument more consistent, it begs the question for the existence of the supernatural

To cause the natural.

 

[MaxP]

Hey Nathan,
interesting post, but I´d like to stay focussed for the time being if you don´t mind.
The OP asked why someone would say that the existence of god is unknowable. I gave a couple of reasons, and in response to them you explain how the arguments presented for the existence of god are based on the unknowable and impossible to answer.

Maybe impossible to know for sure; but if God wanted us to be able to say with absolute certainty that He exists, wouldn't that eliminate any choice we have in the matter?

 

[MaxP]

You assume that the "worker" must be some anthropomorphic entity, which is not true. Chemical reactions occur without this kind of "worker" intervention all the time (the formation of stars, for instance).

Well, in order for matter and energy to exist time must exist to order the reaction, space must exist to allow the reactions to happen, and the matter and energy must be "pushed" in some way to react with each other.