Just a question

[Abbadon]

I disagree with anyone who claims anything is uncaused. Why would we assume this?

So you think causality was uncaused then, which would mean that you disgree with yourself.

Yes, that is true. I don't think he was saying every Christian is a literalist though.

He said "Christians," not "some Christians." If someone made a post saying "agnostics lack the intelligence for religious thought," wouldn't you post against them? I realize it may well have been a slip of the tongue, but it's inaccurate generalizations of any group need to be corrected.

 

[Rasta]

So you think causality was uncaused then, which would mean that you disgree with yourself.

Deliberately changing another's statement so it can be easily refuted is called a straw man argument.

You are wrong. I don't think anything is uncaused. Cause then effect. We don't have any reason to assume anything else is the case.

He said "Christians," not "some Christians." If someone made a post saying "agnostics lack the intelligence for religious thought," wouldn't you post against them? I realize it may well have been a slip of the tongue, but it's inaccurate generalizations of any group need to be corrected.

I am agreeing with you, it was poorly worded. I just don't think that was his intent. You are right to argue it. I think I am just bridging the gap of miscommunication. Maybe he WAS intending that though, so I shouldn't speak for him.

 

[Abbadon]

Deliberately changing another's statement so it can be easily refuted is called a straw man argument.

But I'm not changing your statement, merely pointing out its logical conclusion. Does causality have a cause or not?

You are wrong. I don't think anything is uncaused. Cause then effect. We don't have any reason to assume anything else is the case.

If causality has a cause, then why would its cause be restricted by causality?

 

[Rasta]

But I'm not changing your statement, merely pointing out its logical conclusion. Does causality have a cause or not?

Ah, you appear to think that I have been going back and forth or something. I've always said everthing has a cause. Is causality a thing or not? Yes it is, therefore the logical conclusion would be yes it has a cause.

If causality has a cause, then why would its cause be restricted by causality?

Did I say so? Please show me where I did. I seem to remember always claiming that evreything has a cause and we have no reason to assume that something at some time was uncaused. If I am wrong, I'd like to know.

 

[Abbadon]

Is causality a thing or not? Yes it is, therefore the logical conclusion would be yes it has a cause.

And why would the cause of causality be bound to causality?

Did I say so? Please show me where I did.

I don't see how you got the idea that I said you said something out of the statement "If causality has a cause, then why would its cause be restricted by causality?" Where did I say that you said something?

I seem to remember always claiming that evreything has a cause and we have no reason to assume that something at some time was uncaused. If I am wrong, I'd like to know.

That everything has a cause is dependant on causality. Believing that everything has a cause is believing in causality. If everything has a cause, causality has a cause. We have no reason to assume that the cause of causality would retroactively be under causality.

 

[Rasta]

And why would the cause of causality be bound to causality?

Why do pink bunnies with wings prefer chocolate to gummies? I don't know. Why would we have any reason to assume that anything is uncaused? Even fancy ideas?

I don't see how you got the idea that I said you said something out of the statement "If causality has a cause, then why would its cause be restricted by causality?" Where did I say that you said something?

I see you may have forgotten. Here it is.

So you think causality was uncaused then, which would mean that you disgree with yourself.

That everything has a cause is dependant on causality. Believing that everything has a cause is believing in causality. If everything has a cause, causality has a cause. We have no reason to assume that the cause of causality would retroactively be under causality.

*edit* Wait, I didn't see "We have no reason to assume that the cause of causality would retroactively be under causality".

Why do you think this to be true?

 

[Rasta]

bump

 

[BlackBerry]

Loads of mental gymnastics in this thread. A cookie for anyone who can say how many times the word "causality" has been posted.

In disscussions like these, the key terms that are almost never agreed upon is what constitues a fact, and what constitues truth.

Some people do not acknowledge that "truth" is merely a personal translation of facts. Of course they would have to admit their "absolute claims" are merely one man's opinion, which fundamentalists will never do.

Key indications of intellectual dishonesty that follow this dynamic are usually prompted by "God SEZ this" or "Every true Christian KNOWS this".

The problem is that these types of arguments rely on one perspective (or a common collective perspective) as an axiom indicator of truth.

Therefore any meaningful discussion is reduced to: "Nu Uh"
"yu huh."
"No"
"yep."
"I'm right."
"your obviously wrong"

I have observed this to be mostly true.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

If the world is so amazing it can not exist without a creator, then wouldn’t the creator be so amazing it needed a creator as well? And if the creator does not need a creator of its own, why should the world?[/SIZE]

Very simply, the reason is that there is a HUGE (virtually infinite) qualitative difference between God (the Creator) and His creation!

And this is the reason why creation was impossible without God but He Himself is Uncreated.

Best regards,

Bruce

 

[GeratTzedek]

I do not believe in god and I’m doing some research out of pure interest for I have never been educated about religion.

If the world is so amazing it can not exist without a creator, then wouldn’t the creator be so amazing it needed a creator as well? And if the creator does not need a creator of its own why should the world?

I do not need fact based arguments but at the same time please answer my question with respect.

You have to consider definitions and the essense of things. For example, if a dog bites a man, it's not too newsworthy, but if a man bites a dog, hey now that needs some explaining because it is not normative for men to go around biting dogs.

Our intuitive minds tell us that things which happen randomly should not be organized and meaningful, so when they turn out to be so, we sit up and take notice and wonder why, and (yes) Who. But if G-d is amazing beyond words, well, that is just G-d being G-d, it is what G-d by definition is supposed to be. It is the difference between the nature of Creator and the nature of creation.

 

[GeratTzedek]

The battle cry of the atheist.

His question was honest, intelligent, and politely worded. Why did you feel it necessary to make a personal attack? Do you realize when you resort to personal attacks it simply make him look good and you look bad?

 

[GeratTzedek]

I see. So then you believe that science is always correct and the Bible never correct?

That is not what he said. You owe him an apology for your misrepresentation.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Key indications of intellectual dishonesty that follow this dynamic are usually prompted by "God SEZ this" or "Every true Christian KNOWS this".

This is not always indicative of dishonesty. Sometimes it indicates an inability to reason well. Not everyone is equally gifted with reason-- there are many forms of intelligence, and an individual may excel in one while lacking in another. And of course some poor souls seem to lack in most all. It would not be just to accuse them of being devious when they are doing the best they can with what they have.

 

[Rasta]

This is not always indicative of dishonesty. Sometimes it indicates an inability to reason well. Not everyone is equally gifted with reason-- there are many forms of intelligence, and an individual may excel in one while lacking in another. And of course some poor souls seem to lack in most all. It would not be just to accuse them of being devious when they are doing the best they can with what they have.

I agree in theory, but it's dishonest to declare your opinion as "God's words". Or your interpretation of a holy text as "God's words", or to speak authoritatively about what "God wants". A simple "I think" or "I believe" is enough of a qualification in my mind.

 

[Abbadon]

Why do you think this to be true?

If the cause of causality is bound by causality, then the causality precedes it. Effects cannot precede causes.

I see you may have forgotten. Here it is.

I said "If causality has a cause, then why would its cause be restricted by causality?"

You said "Did I say so? Please show me where I did."

It would have been more appropriate to say "Did I say so?" to the quote of me that you provided in post 26 from 21, not after "If causality has a cause, then why would its cause be restricted by causality," it's just misleading.

You say everything has a cause, affirming a belief in causality. Either causality has a cause (which there is no reason to assume it would be bound by causality, else causality would precede it), or causality doesn't have a cause (which would deny causality).

But, why did I say you believe causality was uncaused? You implied that whatever caused causality would be bound by it by repeated insistance that everything has a cause, which (since the effects cannot precede causes) would mean that the supposed cause of causality didn't cause causality, so causality has no cause.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I agree in theory, but it's dishonest to declare your opinion as "God's words". Or your interpretation of a holy text as "God's words", or to speak authoritatively about what "God wants". A simple "I think" or "I believe" is enough of a qualification in my mind.

It is only dishonest if you know it to be false and say it anyway. If you think it to be true, and it's not, then you are just stupid.

 

[Rasta]

It is only dishonest if you know it to be false and say it anyway. If you think it to be true, and it's not, then you are just stupid.

There is NO WAY to tell if it is true.

Does god exsist? You will say yes. Does you saying the three letters that comprise the word associated with the idea Yes an indicator of the truth of the actual state of affairs?

Or is that your opinion?

You don't know what I'm talking about?

 

[Rasta]

If the cause of causality is bound by causality, then the causality precedes it. Effects cannot precede causes.

Causality is an idea. If causality is true, nothing can precede causality by definition.

I said "If causality has a cause, then why would its cause be restricted by causality?"

You said "Did I say so? Please show me where I did."

It would have been more appropriate to say "Did I say so?" to the quote of me that you provided in post 26 from 21, not after "If causality has a cause, then why would its cause be restricted by causality," it's just misleading.

I'm sure this is a misunderstanding. I didn't intend it to be misleading. If you took that as a deliberate act on my part to mislead you, I appologize.

You say everything has a cause, affirming a belief in causality. Either causality has a cause (which there is no reason to assume it would be bound by causality, else causality would precede it), or causality doesn't have a cause (which would deny causality).

That argument is counter intuitive. You are just using semantics to make a logical knot. One that need not exsist.

Let me show you an example see if you think this argument is valid: If god can do anything, can he make a rock so big that he can't move it?

But, why did I say you believe causality was uncaused? You implied that whatever caused causality would be bound by it by repeated insistance that everything has a cause, which (since the effects cannot precede causes) would mean that the supposed cause of causality didn't cause causality, so causality has no cause.

That doesn't make any sence. If causality is true, there would be no action outside the influence of causality. Therefore, an action can't precede causality.

 

[Abbadon]

Causality is an idea. If causality is true, nothing can precede causality by definition.

You said in post 22 "I don't think anything is uncaused. Cause then effect." You now say causality is uncaused.

Let me show you an example see if you think this argument is valid: If god can do anything, can he make a rock so big that he can't move it?

The question is basically a matter of "can an omnipotent being limit themselves?" If they cannot, then they are not omnipotent, but an omnipotent being could start as omnipotent and then limit its own power to that of a limited being for as long as desired. In the classic example, God could just limit His power for a couple of hours and try to pick up a pebble.

If causality is true, there would be no action outside the influence of causality.

And you agreed that that would mean causality would have a cause, but you now say otherwise.

If causality has no cause, then causality isn't absolute. If causality has a cause and that cause is bound by causality, causality preceeds it, an effect preceeds the cause. That's a simple as I can explain it.

You're at a paradox, I'm not.

 

[Rasta]

You said in post 22 "I don't think anything is uncaused. Cause then effect." You now say causality is uncaused.

What caused causality? Aristotle. Next?

The question is basically a matter of "can an omnipotent being limit themselves?" If they cannot, then they are not omnipotent, but an omnipotent being could start as omnipotent and then limit its own power to that of a limited being for as long as desired. In the classic example, God could just limit His power for a couple of hours and try to pick up a pebble.

And fail or succeed?

And you agreed that that would mean causality would have a cause, but you now say otherwise.

This is not what I'm saying. Causality is not a specific event in time. It is a dynamic that has been givin a name. Though this is only an idea.

If causality has no cause, then causality isn't absolute. If causality has a cause and that cause is bound by causality, causality preceeds it, an effect preceeds the cause. That's a simple as I can explain it.

Yes it is simple. I'm not debating the simplicity of the idea, which you seem to be associating with it making sence.

Three gods are one. Simple idea. Though it is clear for me to see that 1+1+1 does not equal 1. Simple ideas don't need to make sence to be simple.

Why would we assume that any action at any time was uncaused? Please answer this question this time.