"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[The Cadet]

You seriously ask me to explain why an effect has a cause?

I expect you to demonstrate that existence has a cause. You're intuitively jumping from "every effect that we experience has a cause" to "matter and energy and the universe itself has a cause". This is not a reasonable intuitive leap.

Good Lord...
Not a set, it's singular.

Well okay then, if God is defined as the only thing without a cause, then I can validly reformulate the first premise of the argument as follows: "Everything except God has a cause".

And at that point, the argument has become circular. You are trying to prove the existence of god, but the first premise already assumes that god exists.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, you're lagging behind i.m.h.o.I'm arguing the obvious, namely that an effect (like in this case existence and reality itself) has a cause.

I'm sorry, but that sentence doesn't make much sense. Wouldn't the cause itself have to exist? And if it existed, then how it could be a cause of existence?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I expect you to demonstrate that existence has a cause. You're intuitively jumping from "every effect that we experience has a cause" to "matter and energy and the universe itself has a cause". This is not a reasonable intuitive leap.



Well okay then, if God is defined as the only thing without a cause, then I can validly reformulate the first premise of the argument as follows: "Everything except God has a cause".

And at that point, the argument has become circular. You are trying to prove the existence of god, but the first premise already assumes that god exists.

You can lead a horse to water....

....but you can't teach him basic logic.

 

[Hieronymus]

Lol wonderful...so there are things which aren't caused. Argument refuted.

No, you just don't get it.
Let me repeat it for the 3rd time:
The Original Cause can not be caused.

It's impossible to cause the original cause, because that would imply there is no original cause, only effect.
But an effect is caused by definition.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm sorry, but that sentence doesn't make much sense. Wouldn't the cause itself have to exist? And if it existed, then how it could be a cause of existence?

Aha, i see your point.
We're obviously speaking of our reality, you know, the thing we have in common, which we can observe by means of our senses, of which we're a part ourselves.

 

[Hieronymus]

You can lead a horse to water....

....but you can't teach him basic logic.

Well that's rich coming from you, i'm sorry to say...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well that's rich coming from you, i'm sorry to say...

Tell you what...I'll make this as simple as I can for you...

Does everything have a cause?

Or...

Are there "uncaused" things?

Both cannot be true...obviously.

 

[Hieronymus]

Dan barker put it very nicely:

The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.​

Theophobia drips from all sides of this 'argument'.
The man just refuses to consider "NBE" is not a mask, but it's the Original Cause.
The "why?" question is avoided alltogether, this guy doesn't want to know of a reason for existence.
Sad really...
He probably loves life, but hates the thing that gave life.
Anyway, Original Cause is more or less a definition of God, it's what "God" means (amongst some other things)
​

Okay, but does he have any other attributes? Does anything about Him follow from this?

No.
I don't think so.
But there are some claims in the world on who or what the Original Cause is.
But that's a different subject, it's the question: "So which God is God?"

 

[Hieronymus]

Tell you what...I'll make this as simple as I can for you...

Does everything have a cause?

Or...

Are there "uncaused" things?

Both cannot be true...obviously.

You still don't get it....
But i explained it to you best i can.
What did you not understand?

Do you think there can be effects at all without an original cause?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You still don't get it....
But i explained it to you best i can.
What did you not understand?

Do you think there can be effects at all without an original cause?

It's not my argument...I'm just giving you a refutation. I don't claim to know if the universe began or if it was caused. All I believe is that the furthest back we can understand is that at some point it existed as a singularity...

Now, do all things have a cause...or do some things not have a cause? It's fairly obvious that you seem to think some things don't have a cause...yes?

 

[The Cadet]

Theophobia drips from all sides of this 'argument'.

And if the argument is valid, that doesn't matter in the slightest. (Also, what are you even talking about?)

The man just refuses to consider "NBE" is not a mask, but it's the Original Cause.

I'm afraid you missed the point of the argument. The point is that if god is the only thing that is uncaused, if that is how we define god, then the first premise of the argument can be equivocated with "Everything except God has a cause", at which point the article is circular, as it has posited its conclusion in the premise.

Anyway, Original Cause is more or less a definition of God, it's what "God" means (amongst some other things)

But that's not the god you believe in, is it?

You still don't get it....
But i explained it to you best i can.

I think they would understand it better if you answered their question. It's a pretty simple question - "Is X true, or is (not X) true?" And to be honest, I'm not sure on which side of this you fall.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's not my argument...I'm just giving you a refutation.

No, you just show you don't get the point.
It's confounding...

I don't claim to know if the universe began or if it was caused. All I believe is that the furthest back we can understand is that at some point it existed as a singularity...

Yes, a singularity with all the traits to bring forth what we have today.
This is begging the question: "WHY?"
What's the reason?
A reason implies intelligence and conciousness.
But so does design an manufacture.

Why on earth do you want reality to be pointless?

Now, do all things have a cause...or do some things not have a cause? It's fairly obvious that you seem to think some things don't have a cause...yes?

Just read what i wrote with attention.
I'm not a broken record.

 

[Hieronymus]

And if the argument is valid, that doesn't matter in the slightest. (Also, what are you even talking about?)

I'm talking about rigid bias.

 

[Hieronymus]

---oopsy--- (quoted myself instead of editing)

 

[The Cadet]

Just read what i wrote with attention.
I'm not a broken record.

Or, you know, you could save time and just give a straight answer. Why are you dodging? It takes just as much time to write "option 1" or "option 2" as it takes to say "go back and reread all my posts". Less, even.

What's the reason?

Why do you think there's a reason? What reason is there to believe that there's a reason to the existence of the universe? Couldn't it just be?

Why on earth do you want reality to be pointless?

I don't want reality to be pointless. I don't see reality as pointless. This is a far cry from assuming that there has to be a reason for the universe's existence.

I'm talking about rigid bias.

William Lane Craig has explicitly stated that if he were taken back in time and got to watch Jesus's body rot away for months in the tomb, he would still believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Bias doesn't get much more rigid than that. And yet, we don't throw that at him when discussing his arguments, we address it on its merits.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, you just show you don't get the point.
It's confounding...Yes, a singularity with all the traits to bring forth what we have today.
This is begging the question: "WHY?"
What's the reason?
A reason implies intelligence and conciousness.
But so does design an manufacture.

Why on earth do you want reality to be pointless?
Just read what i wrote with attention.
I'm not a broken record.

It's not a matter of what I want...it's a matter of accepting the truth, whether it personally appeals to me or not.


Great...you don't think everything needs a cause. Then you really have no reason to think that the universe has one.

 

[quatona]

You still don't get it....
But i explained it to you best i can.
What did you not understand?

Do you think there can be effects at all without an original cause?

I may have missed it, but I haven´t seen the deduction that lead you to the conclusion that the universe is an effect. You simply asserted it.

 

[quatona]

On a more general note: I think it has become hopeless by now to try to keep this thread on topic.
I´ll officially submit it to the fate of pretty much every thread here has after a couple of pages: I.e. becoming a general discussion of the question "Does a God exist?".

 

[Ana the Ist]

On a more general note: I think it has become hopeless by now to try to keep this thread on topic.
I´ll officially submit it to the fate of pretty much every thread here has after a couple of pages: I.e. becoming a general discussion of the question "Does a God exist?".

Sorry quatona...

What were you hoping for though? A brilliant explanation of the "greatest conceivable being"? You knew you weren't going to even see a bare bones explanation of the concept...

 

[anonymous person]

Maybe he was hoping his thread would not get derailed?