Shun:
It seems like you're changing the meaning of 'has to be' here. I was talking about causality needing to be unbroken, in the sense that nothing just happens for no reason(s) at all. Pardon if I'm reading too much into it. I've mentioned before why I don't think causality can be partial; if it could (and thus, things can happen for no reason), chaos should be expected everywhere; things happening with no cause anywhere (what could stop them, after all?). If that was the case, life couldn't exist.
Some people seem to try to solve this by just hoping that the violations of causality just happen to happen in all the convenient places and none of the deadly places, but this is hopelessly illogical and amounts to blind faith.
And really I think that it's not just that there would be total chaos, but that there really wouldn't be anything at all.
I certainly agree we're fallible, but sound logic is the one way we can get past our flaws, if we truly use it. :) Some things ARE reliable as observation continually demonstrates. Nobody who claims otherwise actually acts on that claim in all aspects of life. They know to make X happen, you have to do things logically understandable as causing X.
Understood, but this is an unfounded assumption.
Such as? I've already done this; I know that that claim itself is the assumption...
How is that anything but an emotional argument? I hate to throw your wording back at you, but frankly this claim looks "phony" to me. As for anthropomorphic, God can share some traits with humans (like having a mind), without being like them in other ways. For example, he isn't limited to a finite, physical body.
I believe God is ultimately the Origin and cause of everything, but 'Has to be?' No.
Some people seem to try to solve this by just hoping that the violations of causality just happen to happen in all the convenient places and none of the deadly places, but this is hopelessly illogical and amounts to blind faith.
And really I think that it's not just that there would be total chaos, but that there really wouldn't be anything at all.
From the fallible human perspective nothing is necessary
I believe the logical Theistic perspective is dependent on the acceptance of Methodological Naturalism
If you pursue this in a logical argument you will get caught making assumptions about the existence of God, and an intensely circular argument.
No, 'reshaping matter.' just sounds too phony and anthropomorphic, as 'humans shaping matter to make things would.'
Comment