Atheism (2)

[KCfromNC]

we see causation every day, cause and effect. If you throw a pen in the air, it hits you in the head (sort of thing)

Yes, some events can be explained by causes. How does that prove the Christian god created the universe ex nihilo?

 

[KCfromNC]

No.

This is an assertion. The only example you have given of causative agents is human beings and they have a cause themselves.

I think the logical conclusion is that since humans are agents and agents are uncased causes of the universe, humans from the future must have traveled back in time to create the universe. It's as logical a conclusion from the premises as making up a god. You have to manufacture all sorts of special pleading to disagree with this, which in my mind shows that the whole argument is broken from the start.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Proof of this claim? Sounds like special pleading - everything has a cause, except for this special magical god I just happen to have faith in. What a coincidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Everything we have observed has a cause.

This isn't even really true. There are lots of events which as far as we can tell are truly random. While that may not shoot holes in some views of cause and effect, it surely speaks to the requirement that the universe be the intentional effect of an intelligent planned cause.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

So if I shoot someone in the head, physics is responsible for killing them and I didn't cause their death? Seems like that would be the logical conclusion if your view of the world were true but no one seems to actually think that way.

 

[Belk]

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.

That's nice. We still see un-caused phenomenon.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Everything we know of has another cause, including agents.

Even so, your rebuttal has two problems:

1) You're making authoritative statements about what caused the Big Bang. You can't possibly know what the universe was like prior to the Big Bang, and you can't possibly know if it actually required an uncaused agent.

2) If it did require an agent, you have not shown such an agent is intelligent, all powerful or had a purpose in creating the universe

 

[Dave Ellis]

both have causes

Correct, and neither one of them has an intelligently based cause.

 

[Dave Ellis]

confusing general and universal agency

You haven't demonstrated universal agency exists.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

No, I don't see how you think that's even remotely the most plausible explanation.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

A super-intelligent being more complex than the universe itself just popping into existence is even less likely than the universe just randomly happening.


However, I think it's likely neither one of those options are correct.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

What does it matter? The signature being caused by a miracle is still not remotely as plausible as someone writing their signature with the pen from the seismograph machine, or a really strange act of nature.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This isn't even really true. There are lots of events which as far as we can tell are truly random. While that may not shoot holes in some views of cause and effect, it surely speaks to the requirement that the universe be the intentional effect of an intelligent planned cause.

Well, in a way, the big bang is the cause of those random events. Without the big bang, those random events would never occur.... therefore it is a cause.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

Wrong. Every agent we know has a cause. Human beings are not uncaused. We all have parents, after all.

What you mean is that free willed actions aren't caused. Although, I'd say instead that the cause of free willed actions are agents.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

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.

That is the first time I have seen the instantiation of the cosmos described as an explosion needing a source of combustion.

Do you think God used a Bic lighter of sorts, or did he rub two metaphysical sticks together?

No, we do not know that the instantiation of the cosmos was caused.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That is the first time I have seen the instantiation of the cosmos described as an explosion needing a source of combustion.

Do you think God used a Bic lighter of sorts, or did he rub two metaphysical sticks together?

No, we do not know that the instantiation of the cosmos was caused.

Heretic!

It's obvious God used the Holy Cosmic Zippo

 

[sandwiches]

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.

So, you believe the Big Bang was an explosion as in an exploding bomb or a firecracker?

 

[createdtoworship]

Everything we know of has another cause, including agents.

Even so, your rebuttal has two problems:

1) You're making authoritative statements about what caused the Big Bang. You can't possibly know what the universe was like prior to the Big Bang, and you can't possibly know if it actually required an uncaused agent.

2) If it did require an agent, you have not shown such an agent is intelligent, all powerful or had a purpose in creating the universe

okay lets say that an agent is uncaused which is it's actual philosophical definition, no changing that:

1) I didn't make any authoritative statements only that the universe had a cause, and that it's not an agent.

2)all agents we know of are intelligent, if not ....please refer one to me.

 

[createdtoworship]

So if I shoot someone in the head, physics is responsible for killing them and I didn't cause their death? Seems like that would be the logical conclusion if your view of the world were true but no one seems to actually think that way.

no, there are many causations of this act only one agent. Your that agent who is ultimately responsible for the trigger pulling and the gun is responsible for causing the bullet, and the bullet is responsible for doing damage to the brain tissue of another person. But the agent is responsible for the chain reaction that brought about the death of a person.

 

[createdtoworship]

google agent causation, it brings up this:

A presumed special category of causation whereby agents initiate sequences of events when they act, without the initiation being itself causally determined.

from
agent-causation: Definition from Answers.com


if you doubt that it is a legitimate view, here is stanfords website

Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)