Originally posted by Roy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An argument for Monotheism
Collapse
X
-
"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostOooh, a Euclid's 5th Postulate reference! We about to get Riemannian all up in this piece...Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostNo idea.
But not knowing how that could happen is not proof that it could not happen. I have no idea how Google's search algorithm finds web-pages, but that doesn't mean Google doesn't work.
I suppose the better question is whether or not you have ever known "nothing" to give rise to "something." I suppose then to decide whether or not we think anyone has known "nothing" to give rise to "something." As far as I can tell, the only people who can reasonably give credit to "something can come from nothing" are supernaturalist theists, who have no philosophical-problem with uncaused phenomena. It seems inconsistent to me, presuming you are a metaphysical naturalist, to appeal to the "mystery" or "miracle" of something coming from nothing.
"Nothing comes from nothing" may be common experience, but it isn't self-evident, any more than "parallel lines never meet" is self-evident.
It's smuggled in by going from "something must have a prior thing" to "something must be caused by a prior thing". But if you stop it somewhere you immediately contradict "something must have a prior thing", since the last turtle has no prior thing.
This:
From nothing, nothing is caused.
...
The cause that is prior to all is uncaused.
is a contradiction.
All things have a cause.
...
The cause that is prior to all causes is uncaused.
~or~
From nothing, nothing is caused
...
The cause that is prior to all causes, which is uncaused, came from nothing.
fwiw,
guacamole"Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View PostPresumably, that is not outside of human knowledge--someone knows how it works--so I don't see that as sufficiently analogous.
I suppose the better question is whether or not you have ever known "nothing" to give rise to "something." I suppose then to decide whether or not we think anyone has known "nothing" to give rise to "something." As far as I can tell, the only people who can reasonably give credit to "something can come from nothing" are supernaturalist theists, who have no philosophical-problem with uncaused phenomena. It seems inconsistent to me, presuming you are a metaphysical naturalist, to appeal to the "mystery" or "miracle" of something coming from nothing.This might be a quibble, but I think we are talking about defining terms here--by definition, parallel lines are lines that never meet.I'm objecting to the unnecessarily pejorative characterization of "smuggled-in."All things have a cause.
...
From nothing, nothing is caused
From nothing, nothing is caused
=> Nothing is caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is not caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is caused by something
=> All things are caused by something
=> All things have a cause
?
If so:
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is a thing [<-- possible objection here - there may be no such thing, but that might be "turtles all the way down" or "turtles in a circle"]
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) has a cause
which contradicts
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is uncaused.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostI don't think I am appealing to it. I'm aware that humans have an extremely limited knowledge of the universe, both temporally and spatially, and that there are phenomena such as particle-pair-production for which no cause has been verified. I don't know whether it is possible. I don't know what event led to the universe. I simply do not know, and am not going to assume it is not possible when there is no way to verify it.
1. We do not currently know anything that is uncaused.
2. Everything we have seen is caused.
3. I can say, due to increasingly diminishing probability, that anything that seems uncaused is probably caused.
4. I can further therefore reasonably say, with increasing confidence, that everything is caused.
Counter quibble: By another definition, parallel lines are "lines m and l both intersected by a third straight line (a transversal) in the same plane, the corresponding angles of intersection with the transversal are congruent." It isn't self-evident that those lines never meet.
Aren't these equivalent?
From nothing, nothing is caused
=> Nothing is caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is not caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is caused by something
=> All things are caused by something
=> All things have a cause
?If so:
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is a thing [<-- possible objection here - there may be no such thing, but that might be "turtles all the way down" or "turtles in a circle"]
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) has a cause
which contradicts
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is uncaused.
fwiw,
guacamole"Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNothing new here. Repetition does not make an argument valid.
It remains possible that the 'cause' is an eternal physical existence and Natural Law.
Actually I argue for an apophatic Monotheism, and reject the Greek/Roman Paulist Kataphatic Tritheism of traditional Christianity. Too many Gods.
Traditional Christianity is monotheistic.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostThe rest is pointless equivocation, the only effect of which is to obscure the actual argument.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostThis presumes that, if there is something, then this something must have come to be; and it further presumes that this something must have come from another something.
I'm fairly sure that neither you nor I actually believe such a premise. For example, I am sure you would say that God is not nothing, but that God nevertheless did not come to be, let alone come from anything else.
The real God is uncaused and never came to be. The nature of the true God is being itself.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View PostCorrect, which is why I noted that unless want turtles all the way down, we have to stop it somewhere. I think the OP weakened his case by having to draw first cause into it.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostQuote Originally Posted by guacamole View Post
I would argue that line "nothing comes from nothing" is self-evident. How exactly would something come from nothing?
No idea.
But not knowing how that could happen is not proof that it could not happen. I have no idea how Google's search algorithm finds web-pages, but that doesn't mean Google doesn't work.
"Nothing comes from nothing" may be common experience, but it isn't self-evident, any more than "parallel lines never meet" is self-evident.
If something must have a prior thing, since nothing comes from nothing, then causation is implied and not smuggled in.
It's smuggled in by going from "something must have a prior thing" to "something must be caused by a prior thing".
If it's not turtles all the way down, we need to stop it somewhere.
But if you stop it somewhere you immediately contradict "something must have a prior thing", since the last turtle has no prior thing.
This:
Quote Originally Posted by moonbat
From nothing, nothing is caused.
...
The cause that is prior to all is uncaused.
is a contradiction.
A clarification. From nothing, nothing is caused is more clearly stated as from nothing, no thing is caused.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View PostI suppose the better question is whether or not you have ever known "nothing" to give rise to "something." I suppose then to decide whether or not we think anyone has known "nothing" to give rise to "something." As far as I can tell, the only people who can reasonably give credit to "something can come from nothing" are supernaturalist theists, who have no philosophical-problem with uncaused phenomena. It seems inconsistent to me, presuming you are a metaphysical naturalist, to appeal to the "mystery" or "miracle" of something coming from nothing.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostAren't these equivalent?
From nothing, nothing is caused
=> Nothing is caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is not caused by nothing
=> (Any thing) is caused by something
=> All things are caused by something
=> All things have a cause
?
If so:
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is a thing [<-- possible objection here - there may be no such thing, but that might be "turtles all the way down" or "turtles in a circle"]
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) has a cause
which contradicts
(the cause that is prior to all other causes) is uncaused.
The apparent contradiction is removed.
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostThe argument assumes the principle of limited regress is true. The principle of limited regress says causes per se subordinated do not regress to infinity. The principle applied infers the conclusion that causes per se subordinated regress to a finite first cause.
JM"Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
-
Originally posted by JohnMartin View PostThe supernaturalists claim miracles are caused by God who is the supernatural agent and not from no cause as you incorrectly state above.
JM"Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
-
Originally posted by guacamole View PostSure, but for what it's worth, I said that you weakened your case by drawing first cause into it because people haven't discussed the meat of your argument--that monotheism is necessary and logical. They're getting hung up on the "first cause" clauses. Assume first cause and then make the argument.
JM
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
378 responses
1,679 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-26-2024, 09:22 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,224 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment