Atheism (2)

[Dave Ellis]

so the universe was not caused?

The universe was likely caused, sure... but there's absolutely no evidence that shows that an intelligent super-being or God caused it.

What caused God? It's even more unlikely for a God to exist without cause than the universe.

 

[Dave Ellis]

er, not really. Everything has a cause, accept agents.

law of cause and effect

Everything we have observed has a cause. That does not mean that everything requires a cause.

However, every agent we have ever observed also has a cause. So asserting God has no cause is to make an unjustified claim.


The reality is we don't know what caused the universe. That's the only honest position you can take. To assert anything else is to be intellectually dishonest.

We require more information and more research, and then one day hopefully we will figure out how everything came to be.

 

[Dave Ellis]

humans are agents over certain actions yes. Not agents universally, because they have a cause (their parents).

But we don't know of agents that are not personal

I don't know of any

Gravity and Erosion are agents that cause landslides.

You don't need intelligent sources to have causality. To assert the creation of the universe required intelligence is a faulty argument.

You must demonstrate why it required intelligence, and then demonstrate that it did require intelligence.

To assert that it did, without showing how or why you know that is not making a valid argument.

 

[Dave Ellis]

what you mean?

He means we are not aware of what caused the big bang.

There's a number of ideas, both scientific or theological in nature... however none of them we can prove are correct.

So, the honest position to take is we don't know what caused it. To assert anything as truth is to be dishonest.

The best thing to do is research further, in hopes we can one day answer the question.

 

[Belk]

look up cause and effect will ya, save some time.

Look up big bang prior to plank time. It might save you some time since all known physics goes out the window at that point.

 

[Belk]

Everything we have observed has a cause. That does not mean that everything requires a cause.

However, every agent we have ever observed also has a cause. So asserting God has no cause is to make an unjustified claim.


The reality is we don't know what caused the universe. That's the only honest position you can take. To assert anything else is to be intellectually dishonest.

We require more information and more research, and then one day hopefully we will figure out how everything came to be.

[nit pick] This is not true. We have observed several phenomena at the sub atomic and quantum levels that as far as we are able to determine have no cause. See radioactive decay and quantum foam/virtual particles [/nit pick]

 

[Eudaimonist]

humans are agents over certain actions yes. Not agents universally, because they have a cause (their parents).

But we don't know of agents that are not personal

Everything is a source of causes, even if it is not an agent. An electron acts as an electron because it is an electron, not because it was caused to act like an electron by any other cause. Even if the electron was created in some prior event, now that it is an electron it behaves as an electron.

So, the universe could cause its own expansion without any sort of free willing Prime Mover. It expanded because it was in its nature to expand. There is no reason, in principle, why entities (including unintelligent ones) can't be sources of causes, and therefore possible uncaused causes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

Everything is a source of causes, even if it is not an agent. An electron acts as an electron because it is an electron, not because it was caused to act like an electron by any other cause. Even if the electron was created in some prior event, now that it is an electron it behaves as an electron.

So, the universe could cause its own expansion without any sort of free willing Prime Mover. It expanded because it was in its nature to expand. There is no reason, in principle, why entities (including unintelligent ones) can't be sources of causes, and therefore possible uncaused causes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

an electron acts as such because of it's charge. Whatever charged it would be the cause. secondly, there are valence electrons that are broken off and swing from atom to atom, this is electricity. So again the cause would be the charge.

 

[createdtoworship]

[nit pick] This is not true. We have observed several phenomena at the sub atomic and quantum levels that as far as we are able to determine have no cause. See radioactive decay and quantum foam/virtual particles [/nit pick]

your confusing general agency to universal agency. If I throw a ball in the air, I am a general agent in the process of that ball flying. But once it starts falling I am no longer the agent. Gravity is. So I would not be an agent anymore.

 

[createdtoworship]

He means we are not aware of what caused the big bang.

There's a number of ideas, both scientific or theological in nature... however none of them we can prove are correct.

So, the honest position to take is we don't know what caused it. To assert anything as truth is to be dishonest.

The best thing to do is research further, in hopes we can one day answer the question.

the only cause that doesn't have another cause is an agent, so something had to have an agent to start the cycle. Whether it was an explosion prior to the big bang or the big bang itself, or something other than the big bang. The cause had to be an agent because it's the only thing that lacks a causation.

 

[createdtoworship]

Gravity and Erosion are agents that cause landslides.

You don't need intelligent sources to have causality. To assert the creation of the universe required intelligence is a faulty argument.

You must demonstrate why it required intelligence, and then demonstrate that it did require intelligence.

To assert that it did, without showing how or why you know that is not making a valid argument.

both have causes

 

[createdtoworship]

Everything we have observed has a cause. That does not mean that everything requires a cause.

However, every agent we have ever observed also has a cause. So asserting God has no cause is to make an unjustified claim.


The reality is we don't know what caused the universe. That's the only honest position you can take. To assert anything else is to be intellectually dishonest.

We require more information and more research, and then one day hopefully we will figure out how everything came to be.

confusing general and universal agency

 

[createdtoworship]

Agent causation does not equal intelligent design at all.

As for the seismograph, It's far more likely to be a wacky earthquake, or a prank from someone else in the lab than an invisible magic man in the sky

There would be no reason to attribute that to a god at all.

sure, but IF a signature showed up on it. Something was miraculous yes?

 

[createdtoworship]

So, how do we know this explosion, the Big Bang, was caused?

If you know the universe was caused by the big bang, you also know the big bang was caused. Because explosions don't happen for no source of combustion.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry about the sarcasm, but sometimes the best way to deal with a ridiculous argument, is to ridicule it.

The flaw in your argument is that you don't know the universe was caused by something that didn't have a cause.

However, regardless it's reasonable to assume for the sake of argument that some form of agent caused the universe to come into existence.... However, there is no evidence at all for that agent to be intelligent, conscious or a God of any type. It could simply be a cause of nature.

most likely something down the line, had to start it all. This would be an agent. unless you think an infinity of causes started it all. Which is unlikely.

 

[Gadarene]

most likely something down the line, had to start it all. This would be an agent. unless you think an infinity of causes started it all. Which is unlikely.

This is still an assertion, now there's a false dilemma in there too.

We have no evidence that universal agents exists - indeed, this is what this argument is trying to prove, so the argument becomes somewhat circular.

We also have no evidence that uncaused causes exist that don't have agency.

In short, we have no idea what's going on.

 

[Gadarene]

sure, but IF a signature showed up on it. Something was miraculous yes?

No, profoundly ordinary. Some passing human wrote their signature on it. This is hardly an unscientific observation. We know humans exist. We cannot say the same for universal agents.

I do hope we can avoid arguments from design or any notion of a criterion of design as they're rather rubbish.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, profoundly ordinary. Some passing human wrote their signature on it. This is hardly an unscientific observation. We know humans exist. We cannot say the same for universal agents.

I do hope we can avoid arguments from design or any notion of a criterion of design as they're rather rubbish.

I think you could tell if the pens of the seismograph were the same pen as the signature.

 

[Eudaimonist]

an electron acts as such because of it's charge.

Right. Because an electron is an electron, and electrons have a charge.

The electron does not have any existence separate from its charge. Having a charge is an aspect of what an electron is. So, the electron is the cause, even if we identify its property of charge as what explains what happens as a result.

Whatever charged it would be the cause.

No. The electron is the cause, whether the electron is a product of some prior entity or not. A chain of causation does not invalidate all causes after the first in the chain. If A causes B, and B causes C, you could say that A caused C. However, it would still be the case that B caused C. Both statements are equally true.

And nothing "charges" an electron. They aren't batteries. The electron has the charge it does.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

I think you could tell if the pens of the seismograph were the same pen as the signature.

Erm, probably. So?

A pen is a pen is a pen, and people use pens to write signatures. You and Kookle seem to think that a scientist would be genuinely bemused by this.