New member question about philosophy

[Magenta]

We haven't seen much of the sun in a couple weeks, which is pretty rare for my part of Texas.

I know what you mean:) I'm in Tx too. Please come out sun and stay awhile .^_^

[carpedm9587]

Perceived likelihood is the only way to make the decision of what is self-existent. No objective evidence is available. The same perceived likelihood is what makes self-existence universe folks, lean to that option.

Actually, that's not what makes me lean in that direction. What maakes me lean in that direction is the general principal that I should not add to an explanation something that is not strictly necessary for that explanation. So we have universe, or god+universe. Since universe by itself is the simpler proposition, and I have no other compelling evidence suggesting I should add a god,
I don't.

I agree that we don't know is not a reason to say God did it. However, I see the same dynamic at work with people like Jim saying in effect, "Since you can not prove scientifically that there is a God, that means that God did not do it."

If Jim is making that claim, I would suggest the claim is somewhat irrational. As a "supernatural" being, the idea of god lies outside the scope of science. Science has little/nothing to say about gods because the concept is not falsifiable scientifically.

[shunyadragon]

Could be, don't know all theistic positions, but if they don't believe that an immaterial or supernatural existent created the material or natural world then the only alternative I can see is Pantheism. If your argument is that there are 2 necessary existences, then I would argue that there are 2 gods, and the very idea that there are 2 gods is a contradiction on its face. I know you've said that the B'hai preaches that the material world is a reflection of god or something like that, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

God never intended to make sense to you nor appeal to the logic and reasoning of any mortal. To do this would a contradiction to the existence of God. It is simply a fact of belief that there is only one 'Source' some call Gods, and our physical Creation is the eternal reflection of the attributes of God.

[Darfius]

A "self-existent universe" is not a viable idea. William Lane Craig really put this idea to bed. A self-existent universe would require an infinite regression of causes to reach the present. An infinite regression of finite events is inherently illogical and therefore impossible. As the Bible points out, God's existence is self-evident and people pretend not to understand why because they find His existence annoying.

[Jedidiah]

A "self-existent universe" is not a viable idea. William Lane Craig really put this idea to bed. A self-existent universe would require an infinite regression of causes to reach the present. An infinite regression of finite events is inherently illogical and therefore impossible. As the Bible points out, God's existence is self-evident and people pretend not to understand why because they find His existence annoying.

There are other approaches to a "self-existent universe" that are not so illogical. They are still wrong in my opinion, obviously.

[carpedm9587]

A "self-existent universe" is not a viable idea. William Lane Craig really put this idea to bed. A self-existent universe would require an infinite regression of causes to reach the present. An infinite regression of finite events is inherently illogical and therefore impossible. As the Bible points out, God's existence is self-evident and people pretend not to understand why because they find His existence annoying.

I presume you're referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Craig's defense of it? There is a good response to this here.

In a nutshell, there are several problems with the argument. First, while the argument is sound, the premises ar enot necessarily true so it cannot be shown to be valid. Second, Craig (and others) make a fourth leap not supported by the argument: that the cause of the universe (which is defined, for this discussion, as the sum total of energy/matter/time/space associated with the so-called "Big Bang") is necessarily god (or a god).

[37818]

I presume you're referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Craig's defense of it? There is a good response to this here.

In a nutshell, there are several problems with the argument. First, while the argument is sound, the premises ar enot necessarily true so it cannot be shown to be valid. Second, Craig (and others) make a fourth leap not supported by the argument: that the cause of the universe (which is defined, for this discussion, as the sum total of energy/matter/time/space associated with the so-called "Big Bang") is necessarily god (or a god).

The two assumptions the KCA makes: 1) An infinite series of causes to be impossible. 2) The then necessary first cause, uncaused cause to have the identity of God.

[carpedm9587]

The two assumptions the KCA makes: 1) An infinite series of causes to be impossible. 2) The then necessary first cause, uncaused cause to have the identity of God.

Yes to the former (though it is not clear that case can be made). The 2nd part is not actually part of the KCA. It is a fourth step taken by most. By itself, all the KCA does is show (if the premises are true), that the Universe had to have a cause. It does not identify that cause.

[37818]

Yes to the former (though it is not clear that case can be made). The 2nd part is not actually part of the KCA. It is a fourth step taken by most. By itself, all the KCA does is show (if the premises are true), that the Universe had to have a cause. It does not identify that cause.

Yes.

The argument is so used to claim an identity for God as the uncaused Cause.

Now there is a forgotten presumption - uncaused existence which would have to be in order to have either and infinite series of causes with no first cause or to have an uncaused first cause. Uncaused existence is primary. Now unless this necessary being is presumed to be the Being there is no God.

[JimL]

God never intended to make sense to you nor appeal to the logic and reasoning of any mortal. To do this would a contradiction to the existence of God. It is simply a fact of belief that there is only one 'Source' some call Gods, and our physical Creation is the eternal reflection of the attributes of God.

That's not a fact shunya, that's a belief. That some call the source of our physical existence god means nothing, it's no different than saying that some call the source of our physical existence peanut butter, and that our physical existence is a reflection of peanut butter.

[carpedm9587]

Yes.

The argument is so used to claim an identity for God as the uncaused Cause.

Now there is a forgotten presumption - uncaused existence which would have to be in order to have either and infinite series of causes with no first cause or to have an uncaused first cause. Uncaused existence is primary. Now unless this necessary being is presumed to be the Being there is no God.

I realize the argument is used that way - but it is not actually part of the argument. The conclusion to the KCA is that the universe must be caused.

[Darfius]

I presume you're referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Craig's defense of it? There is a good response to this here.

In a nutshell, there are several problems with the argument. First, while the argument is sound, the premises ar enot necessarily true so it cannot be shown to be valid. Second, Craig (and others) make a fourth leap not supported by the argument: that the cause of the universe (which is defined, for this discussion, as the sum total of energy/matter/time/space associated with the so-called "Big Bang") is necessarily god (or a god).

That post you linked to didn't debunk anything, even where it was coherent. First he calls cause and effect "intuition" rather than the foundation of all logic. Fail. Then he says you "can't create the material from the immaterial", but that begs the question. The strength of the argument is that the material universe requires a personal Cause precisely to explain the ontological gap between the material and the immaterial. In other words, since all matter had a beginning point, what preceded that beginning point must have been immaterial, but personal so as to choose an effect ontologically different from itself. Then he tries to mumble about multiverses, but that only removes the problem of infinite regression a step back and doesn't solve it.

So the reason the argument proves the God of the Bible rather than any other god is because the Cause must be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immaterial and personal. In other words, He must be perfect. The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't perfect.

[Darfius]

The two assumptions the KCA makes: 1) An infinite series of causes to be impossible. 2) The then necessary first cause, uncaused cause to have the identity of God.

That an infinite series of causes is impossible is not an assumption. An infinite series of causes would require an infinite series of events. Another way of stating an infinite series of events would be infinite finiteness. It's meaningless gibberish.

[shunyadragon]

The two assumptions the KCA makes: 1) An infinite series of causes to be impossible. 2) The then necessary first cause, uncaused cause to have the identity of God.

(1) It has been demonstrated that an infinite series of causes is possible. Actual infinities are a complete closed set and possible and used in physics to describe possible attributes of black holes. Our physical existence is possibly potentially infinite without regard to any actual infinity.

(2) The physical existence is possibly uncaused in and of itself as possibly eternal. and natural laws are possibly eternal.

[shunyadragon]

That's not a fact shunya, that's a belief. That some call the source of our physical existence god means nothing, it's no different than saying that some call the source of our physical existence peanut butter, and that our physical existence is a reflection of peanut butter.

Reread my post: I DID NOT SAY THE 'BELIEF' WAS FACTUAL. I said it is a fact that this represents the Baha'i belief. You apparently need a remedial English lesson.

Reread and respond coherently.