Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
The_Burg said:
If god existed would he / she /it be terribly upset by the non fantasists on this thread and have smited PH by now?
Probably OT but this is the thing that always staggers me about fundamentalists. Your god has created the entire universe, he controls all aspects of every living things existence and yet you think you should blow up the people next door because they think differently? Do they really not stop to think that this supremely powerful being might just take care of this stuff itself if it really mattered?
Thick as s
t. That's my philosophical take on it.
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
Prime mover is conclusion to the question How do we account for change? A pagan worked it out as he tried to rid his people of belief in gods. There is nothing arbitrary about the conclusion, it follows from the premises.
It doesn't assume god, it assumes some things change. From there it shows there must be an unmoved mover, and further reflection shows this has the attributes of the god of classical theism.
Its one possible conclusion - not "the" conclusion.It doesn't assume god, it assumes some things change. From there it shows there must be an unmoved mover, and further reflection shows this has the attributes of the god of classical theism.
Why must there be an unmoved mover? And even if there is - doesn't that raise further questions - like from where did this unmoved mover originate and why can it break causality when nothing else can?
ChrisGB said:
"It's all philosophy" sounds like the dogmatic claim that all knowledge is scientific. But maths and logic are forms of knowledge and are not hypotheses.
Where is God smuggled in here:
1. We observe that some things change
2. No change causes itself
3. No essentially ordered causal series can regress infinitely
Once these are understood, 4. follows:
There must be an a moved first mover.
The problem is - points 2 and 3 are very big assumptions. You are stating them as if they are known, demonstrable facts.Where is God smuggled in here:
1. We observe that some things change
2. No change causes itself
3. No essentially ordered causal series can regress infinitely
Once these are understood, 4. follows:
There must be an a moved first mover.
As for where god is smuggled in - you are simply using "first mover" as a different way of saying "god" - you have essentially stated as much in your first paragraph above by drawing parallels between the first mover and god.
Why do this - can you not accept a first mover without it also being god? Even if a first mover were demonstrated - its a leap to equate this with a god and especially one particular interpretation of god.
Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 12th April 19:20
2. has no counterexample and you would be saying that something exists before it exists if you were to show 2 is false.
3. cannot not be the case once you understand what sort of causal series this is - one where no cause other than the first has any causal power - the other causes are just instrumental. I realise that doesn't explain it, but it gives you an idea of where to look.
I accept first mover as whatever it is, and a little further reflection shows it is the god of monotheism, and specifically Judaism or Christianity. For example, a purely actual being (which is in fact what the argument proves, rather than an unmoved first mover / uncaused first cause, must be immaterial, because with matter comes potential for change, must be unique, or would have potential to be greater or lesser in relation to another purely actual being, must be outside time, as time would lead to change, etcetc.
So it's not a leap, just a further demonstration to get from pure actuality to the god of Judaism or Christianity.
As an aside, Islam rules itself out at this point as it apparently views secondary causality (needed on premise 3) as blasphemous, saying all causation is directly by god (ie. god is always first direct cause of every change). It has been suggested that the lack of role for "nature" on this view is one reason the scientific revolution didn't take off in Islamic countries.
IainT said:
I'm still totally unconvinced by the arguments for a 'prime mover' inevitably leading to a theistic interpretation.
If we take the causal chain from the start of our universe to now we can see that something caused the Big Bang. We don't know what. There are some (small-t) theories, guesses of which some are educated others not so, pet views, etc. In and of itself it doesn't show any intentionality in action in the post-BB universe just a chain of events from a first cause.
I can't argue against a Deist view even though there's no compelling evidence (nor would there be) and Deism is, as far as ongoing process is concerned, indistinguishable from the Atheist interpretation.
The main problem I have with the Theist view is the overwhelming lack of observable evidence in the post-BB universe. In the same way there's no evidence (despite the proliferation of recording equipment) of other supernatural stuff there are no clear indicators of god (whichever one) actually rolling up its sleeves and mucking in.
I'm a bit shocked by this.If we take the causal chain from the start of our universe to now we can see that something caused the Big Bang. We don't know what. There are some (small-t) theories, guesses of which some are educated others not so, pet views, etc. In and of itself it doesn't show any intentionality in action in the post-BB universe just a chain of events from a first cause.
I can't argue against a Deist view even though there's no compelling evidence (nor would there be) and Deism is, as far as ongoing process is concerned, indistinguishable from the Atheist interpretation.
The main problem I have with the Theist view is the overwhelming lack of observable evidence in the post-BB universe. In the same way there's no evidence (despite the proliferation of recording equipment) of other supernatural stuff there are no clear indicators of god (whichever one) actually rolling up its sleeves and mucking in.
You haven't been thinking the first cause argument is about what started the Big Bang? !
First cause is about the causal power in every causal chain downwards hierarchically now, not backwards into the past. First cause is "deepest" causal power in any causal chain, not first temporal cause a long time ago.
Aquinas assumed an eternal universe for the sake of his argument, saying it is harder to prove god if the universe didn't have a beginning in time. The first cause / unmoved mover argument works WHETHER OR NOT the universe ever began.
It is if you like the complete opposite of a deist argument that God wound things up and then let them go, now they unwind on their own. Prime mover / first cause says that every thing that happens now depends on a purely actual acting right here and now to sustain every causal chain, so everything that happens.
Of course that won't convince you by itself that the argument is true, but at least you'll know you have to look somewhere very different to judge it.
And you lament lack of empirical evidence for the immaterial? Jabbah's same old category mistake.
Hmm, on second thoughts you have probably just made me fall foul of Poe's Law.
Edited by ChrisGB on Saturday 12th April 22:12
ChrisGB said:
2. has no counterexample and you would be saying that something exists before it exists if you were to show 2 is false.
Again - you are making unfounded assumptions though (assumptions driven by the fact that you want to make this argument fit your beliefs).The first assumption is that time is linear under all conditions. If it isn't - then it could be possible for something to have a causal effect on itself - you seem to be discounting this possibility.
The second assumption is that causality is a given. If causality is not a given - then the change may occur spontaneously without a cause.
ChrisGB said:
3. cannot not be the case once you understand what sort of causal series this is - one where no cause other than the first has any causal power - the other causes are just instrumental. I realise that doesn't explain it, but it gives you an idea of where to look.
But you dont know what sort of causal series this is. Also - we dont know that a causal series cannot regress infinitely. You are assuming it can't because it suits your argument to do so.ChrisGB said:
I accept first mover as whatever it is,
But you dont as demonstrated by the rest of your post. We have not demonstrated that it even exists - let alone have enough information to infer its properties. And yet despite this spectacular lack of evidence - you infer that this first mover has the properties of a god - and go even further to state that its the one god you happen to believe in.ChrisGB said:
...and a little further reflection shows it is the god of monotheism, and specifically Judaism or Christianity. For example, a purely actual being (which is in fact what the argument proves, rather than an unmoved first mover / uncaused first cause, must be immaterial, because with matter comes potential for change, must be unique, or would have potential to be greater or lesser in relation to another purely actual being, must be outside time, as time would lead to change, etcetc.
So it's not a leap, just a further demonstration to get from pure actuality to the god of Judaism or Christianity.
As an aside, Islam rules itself out at this point as it apparently views secondary causality (needed on premise 3) as blasphemous, saying all causation is directly by god (ie. god is always first direct cause of every change). It has been suggested that the lack of role for "nature" on this view is one reason the scientific revolution didn't take off in Islamic countries.
The rest of your post just demonstrates how you are trying to make the argument fit your preconceived beliefs. You aren't deriving the argument from first principles and making an unbiased objective determination. You have your set of beliefs and are working backwards to try and make the argument fit them.So it's not a leap, just a further demonstration to get from pure actuality to the god of Judaism or Christianity.
As an aside, Islam rules itself out at this point as it apparently views secondary causality (needed on premise 3) as blasphemous, saying all causation is directly by god (ie. god is always first direct cause of every change). It has been suggested that the lack of role for "nature" on this view is one reason the scientific revolution didn't take off in Islamic countries.
ChrisGB said:
First cause is about the causal power in every causal chain downwards hierarchically now, not backwards into the past. First cause is "deepest" causal power in any causal chain, not first temporal cause a long time ago.
Yet we know time passes in an immutable direction. We know that causality flows in the same direction. Your claim of something special that is "deeper" than reality is an assertion with no basis in evidence.ChrisGB said:
Aquinas assumed an eternal universe for the sake of his argument, saying it is harder to prove god if the universe didn't have a beginning in time. The first cause / unmoved mover argument works WHETHER OR NOT the universe ever began.
It is if you like the complete opposite of a deist argument that God would things up and then let them go, now they unwind on their own. Prime mover / first cause says that every thing that happens now depends on a purely actual acting right here and now to sustain every causal chain, so everything they happens.
Of course that won't convince you by itself that the argument is true, but at least you'll know you have to look somewhere very different to judge it.
Your citation of Acquinas as some source with merit to be taken seriously in this discussion is comedic. He wasn't trying to prove anything other than his dogma and his very limited understanding of the natural order led him down some very wrong paths. He'd be counted a bit of a dunce to hold true to all his beliefs in the present age. then again, in this present age he'd most likely have been an atheist never having taken to an order. It is if you like the complete opposite of a deist argument that God would things up and then let them go, now they unwind on their own. Prime mover / first cause says that every thing that happens now depends on a purely actual acting right here and now to sustain every causal chain, so everything they happens.
Of course that won't convince you by itself that the argument is true, but at least you'll know you have to look somewhere very different to judge it.
ChrisGB said:
And you lament lack of empirical evidence for the immaterial? Jabbah's same old category mistake.
Hmm, on second thoughts you have probably just made me fall foul of Poe's Law.
You're wonderfully oblique in your insults aren't you? Hmm, on second thoughts you have probably just made me fall foul of Poe's Law.
If the immaterial cannot, under any circumstances, be measured it cannot, under any circumstance, have an effect on the material. To do so the material must have an immaterial aspect or the immaterial must have a material aspect. Either way the effect of one on the other would be observable. It isn't.
Unless you claim woo/magic with no recourse to order or rationale.
Edited by IainT on Saturday 12th April 22:56
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
2. has no counterexample and you would be saying that something exists before it exists if you were to show 2 is false.
Again - you are making unfounded assumptions though (assumptions driven by the fact that you want to make this argument fit your beliefs).A. The first assumption is that time is linear under all conditions. If it isn't - then it could be possible for something to have a causal effect on itself - you seem to be discounting this possibility.
B. The second assumption is that causality is a given. If causality is not a given - then the change may occur spontaneously without a cause.
ChrisGB said:
3. cannot not be the case once you understand what sort of causal series this is - one where no cause other than the first has any causal power - the other causes are just instrumental. I realise that doesn't explain it, but it gives you an idea of where to look.
C. But you dont know what sort of causal series this is. Also - we dont know that a causal series cannot regress infinitely. You are assuming it can't because it suits your argument to do so.ChrisGB said:
I accept first mover as whatever it is,
But you dont as demonstrated by the rest of your post. We have not demonstrated that it even exists - let alone have enough information to infer its properties. And yet despite this spectacular lack of evidence - you infer that this first mover has the properties of a god - and go even further to state that its the one god you happen to believe in.ChrisGB said:
...and a little further reflection shows it is the god of monotheism, and specifically Judaism or Christianity. For example, a purely actual being (which is in fact what the argument proves, rather than an unmoved first mover / uncaused first cause, must be immaterial, because with matter comes potential for change, must be unique, or would have potential to be greater or lesser in relation to another purely actual being, must be outside time, as time would lead to change, etcetc.
So it's not a leap, just a further demonstration to get from pure actuality to the god of Judaism or Christianity.
As an aside, Islam rules itself out at this point as it apparently views secondary causality (needed on premise 3) as blasphemous, saying all causation is directly by god (ie. god is always first direct cause of every change). It has been suggested that the lack of role for "nature" on this view is one reason the scientific revolution didn't take off in Islamic countries.
The rest of your post just demonstrates how you are trying to make the argument fit your preconceived beliefs. You aren't deriving the argument from first principles and making an unbiased objective determination. You have your set of beliefs and are working backwards to try and make the argument fit them.So it's not a leap, just a further demonstration to get from pure actuality to the god of Judaism or Christianity.
As an aside, Islam rules itself out at this point as it apparently views secondary causality (needed on premise 3) as blasphemous, saying all causation is directly by god (ie. god is always first direct cause of every change). It has been suggested that the lack of role for "nature" on this view is one reason the scientific revolution didn't take off in Islamic countries.
B. arising spontaneously doesn't mean no cause. Background conditions would be the cause, because if they were not present, if there was actually exactly nothing present, there would be no arising.
It seems to me your claim of making this fit a god, which is of course back to front because the conclusion is god, not the premises, is just a cover for what you are doing - refusing to treat this argument as plausible out of a prior commitment to its falsity without even knowing what it's about. Fair?
C. Ask Gaspode what this is and why it cant regress infinitely. why mot read ip o this instead if amoing the same mistakes each time. Google Feser on essentially ordered causal series and youll probably get something useful. The standard example is the arm moving the saw sawing the wood - nothing happens if you take away the arm, the first mover of this series. All the other causes depend here and now on the arm, or there is no causal chain. clear?
D. If the argument is sound then "pure act" exists, it is one, immaterial, non-temporal, all-powerful, simple etc etc because of what it is as pure act. There is much more too that can be deduced from it as pure act. It's not that I end up with the god I happen to believe in - you can't use prime mover as I say to get to Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism - it's that the argument gives you this.
There is nothing working backwards here, every step follows logically.
Of course what you need to do is show that none of it follows, not just state as much.
You have said nothing that challenges the argument's conclusions, just made an accusation based on your own prior commitments. I know we hold other people's arguments to a much higher standard than we do our own, but still....
@Iain
Your formatting is your revenge!!
I take your line on insults as a compliment, its just that the exact same points have been covered several times in this thread. No offense intended, Poe is just very funny!
1. However badly I explain it, an essentially ordered causal series is not controversial, it is just the series of simultaneous causes giving the effects you see all the time. A common example: hand pushing stick pushing stone. Nothing happens without the hand, it alone has causal power, the stick has instrumental or secondary causal power - without the hand, no causal chain. And all causes and effects happen now, this is not a series of cause and effect into the past or future, the cause and effect are instantaneous, though again the time itself isn't an issue, its the way the causes depend on the first in the series.
2. If Aquinas is such a dunce, it says little for all the people who have tried and failed to refute him, mostly by not even reading his arguments. The point of mentioning him was to say that your misunderstanding of this argument was fairly significant if the argument actually assumes a universe with no beginning.
3. On immaterial affecting material, it is not going to be the material or efficient cause, but rather the formal or final cause, which are of course immaterial themselves, and affect the material, giving it shape and goal. Most problems disappear on a hylemorphist take.
Your formatting is your revenge!!
I take your line on insults as a compliment, its just that the exact same points have been covered several times in this thread. No offense intended, Poe is just very funny!
1. However badly I explain it, an essentially ordered causal series is not controversial, it is just the series of simultaneous causes giving the effects you see all the time. A common example: hand pushing stick pushing stone. Nothing happens without the hand, it alone has causal power, the stick has instrumental or secondary causal power - without the hand, no causal chain. And all causes and effects happen now, this is not a series of cause and effect into the past or future, the cause and effect are instantaneous, though again the time itself isn't an issue, its the way the causes depend on the first in the series.
2. If Aquinas is such a dunce, it says little for all the people who have tried and failed to refute him, mostly by not even reading his arguments. The point of mentioning him was to say that your misunderstanding of this argument was fairly significant if the argument actually assumes a universe with no beginning.
3. On immaterial affecting material, it is not going to be the material or efficient cause, but rather the formal or final cause, which are of course immaterial themselves, and affect the material, giving it shape and goal. Most problems disappear on a hylemorphist take.
ChrisGB said:
3. On immaterial affecting material, it is not going to be the material or efficient cause, but rather the formal or final cause, which are of course immaterial themselves, and affect the material, giving it shape and goal. Most problems disappear on a hylemorphist take.
Am I the only one who has no idea what you've just said there??? 
Is it even relevent to a discussion of the existence or not of a deity?
Who knew a simple "where's the evidence" type question could get so convoluted?
ChrisGB said:
A common example: hand pushing stick pushing stone. Nothing happens without the hand, it alone has causal power,
You're missing the continuum (to probably misappropriate the term)... what caused the hand to push the stick? The hand does not have causal power 'alone'. The only way that thought experiment/example works is if we had a disembodied hand that magically appeared and pushed the stick. We don't.This causal pattern extends way back. Without the BB (bang not Brother) nothing happens. IT is the cause. That the BB had a cause is a strong guess unless it just was, like god.
ChrisGB said:
2. If Aquinas is such a dunce, it says little for all the people who have tried and failed to refute him, mostly by not even reading his arguments. The point of mentioning him was to say that your misunderstanding of this argument was fairly significant if the argument actually assumes a universe with no beginning.
So his starting premise is tosh and the rest of the argument should be considered valid because..?im said:
ChrisGB said:
3. On immaterial affecting material, it is not going to be the material or efficient cause, but rather the formal or final cause, which are of course immaterial themselves, and affect the material, giving it shape and goal. Most problems disappear on a hylemorphist take.
Am I the only one who has no idea what you've just said there??? Is it even relevent to a discussion of the existence or not of a deity?
Who knew a simple "where's the evidence" type question could get so convoluted?
I had to go and look up Hylomorphism and it's more medieval attempts to understand the fundamental nature of the universe.
What Aquinas would have done with a particle accelerator is anyone's guess.
ChrisGB said:
A. A change bringing about itself, not a thing having an effect in itself - the latter is commonplace. Give me an example.
Why would I give an example - I haven't made an assertion to require one - merely suggested a possibility that, at this time, cannot be discounted.ChrisGB said:
B. arising spontaneously doesn't mean no cause. Background conditions would be the cause, because if they were not present, if there was actually exactly nothing present, there would be no arising.
Not necessarily - but then it does lead to more questions. What caused the background conditions to exist in the first place? You can't arbitrarily place a line in the sand by stating that one thing cannot exist without a cause (i.e. the thing that arose spontaneously) - but something else can (i.e. the background conditions).ChrisGB said:
It seems to me your claim of making this fit a god, which is of course back to front because the conclusion is god, not the premises
But you haven't arrived at that conclusion from first principles - you already held your belief in god and are tailoring the argument to fit that belief.ChrisGB said:
is just a cover for what you are doing - refusing to treat this argument as plausible out of a prior commitment to its falsity without even knowing what it's about. Fair?
I have refused no such thing. I am quite willing to accept a god as the creator of the universe, as the "first mover" if thats what the evidence points to......but it doesnt.There is no evidence that demonstrated or even suggests that a "first mover" and certainly not a designer god is required for our universe to exist. The best we can get back to at the moment is - "we dont know".
ChrisGB said:
C. Ask Gaspode what this is and why it cant regress infinitely. why mot read ip o this instead if amoing the same mistakes each time.
I have looked back at some of Gaspode's replies to this thread. One in particular caught my attention:"Yes indeed. Time, Space, and our entire frame of reference started at the Big Bang, and that's where the chain of physical causes and consequences started. Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking "What's further South than the South Pole?", it just doesn't make any sense."
Whilst this is commonly held view - it's by no means proven. Big bang theory only gets us back to a time 10^-34 seconds after the big bang had started. Beyond this - all current theories, mathematics etc break down. We dont yet know whether this is because this truly was the start of the causal chain and asking "what came before - really does have no meaning - or whether our models are simply not developed enough to be able to answer that question. Again - this isn't proof of anything - at best its speculation.
ChrisGB said:
Google Feser on essentially ordered causal series and youll probably get something useful. The standard example is the arm moving the saw sawing the wood - nothing happens if you take away the arm, the first mover of this series. All the other causes depend here and now on the arm, or there is no causal chain. clear?
Philosophical thought experiments are not proof/evidence. I understand how causal chains work thanks very much and i'd appreciate you not trying to patronise me......clear?The fact is however that in order for you to get to your first mover - you have to make the assumption that causality is ordered under all circumstances - your argument depends on this assumption being taken as fact.
ChrisGB said:
D. If the argument is sound
Thats a pretty big IF though - and some would argue that you haven't demonstrated that the argument is sound. You are of the opinion that it is - but thats not the same as proving it is.ChrisGB said:
.....then "pure act" exists, it is one, immaterial, non-temporal, all-powerful, simple etc etc because of what it is as pure act. There is much more too that can be deduced from it as pure act. It's not that I end up with the god I happen to believe in - you can't use prime mover as I say to get to Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism - it's that the argument gives you this.
Why not - surely that depends on how you structure the questions. The points you raise are loaded to bring you to the conclusions that it is the prime mover is the christian god/ Even if a prime mover where to exist - what information are you using to assert that it is the christian god - and not the simple background conditions you referred to earlier?ChrisGB said:
There is nothing working backwards here, every step follows logically.
Of course what you need to do is show that none of it follows, not just state as much.
I need to show no such thing. You have made an unfounded assertion - the burden of proof lies with you.Of course what you need to do is show that none of it follows, not just state as much.
ChrisGB said:
You have said nothing that challenges the argument's conclusions, just made an accusation based on your own prior commitments. I know we hold other people's arguments to a much higher standard than we do our own, but still....
I have said plenty - you have just chosen to dismiss them. It's your prerogative I guess.Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 12th April 23:24
IainT said:
ChrisGB said:
A common example: hand pushing stick pushing stone. Nothing happens without the hand, it alone has causal power,
You're missing the continuum (to probably misappropriate the term)... what caused the hand to push the stick? The hand does not have causal power 'alone'. The only way that thought experiment/example works is if we had a disembodied hand that magically appeared and pushed the stick. We don't.This causal pattern extends way back. Without the BB (bang not Brother) nothing happens. IT is the cause. That the BB had a cause is a strong guess unless it just was, like god.
Regress the hand, using your imagination: muscles, nerves, brain, functioning of organism, stability of forces acting on organism, (getting to imagine?), and may be a further step to the brutest brute facts of the universe, the sea of potentialities or whatever QM currently calls it. There is no way this, however much it is filled out with the correct detail, can be infinite.
This isn't about the Big Bang - it's about what founds or grounds a particular cause and effect here and now, as I think is clear in the hand example.
Now of course imagination fails, because we can't picture a sea of potentialities.
Abstracting the process as a whole, or trying to work out what is commin to each step, gives us something like talk of no change bringing itself about, which in Aristotelian jargon is potency being realised by act, or no potentiality realizing itself.
IainT said:
ChrisGB said:
2. If Aquinas is such a dunce, it says little for all the people who have tried and failed to refute him, mostly by not even reading his arguments. The point of mentioning him was to say that your misunderstanding of this argument was fairly significant if the argument actually assumes a universe with no beginning.
So his starting premise is tosh and the rest of the argument should be considered valid because..?ChrisGB said:
IainT said:
ChrisGB said:
A common example: hand pushing stick pushing stone. Nothing happens without the hand, it alone has causal power,
You're missing the continuum (to probably misappropriate the term)... what caused the hand to push the stick? The hand does not have causal power 'alone'. The only way that thought experiment/example works is if we had a disembodied hand that magically appeared and pushed the stick. We don't.This causal pattern extends way back. Without the BB (bang not Brother) nothing happens. IT is the cause. That the BB had a cause is a strong guess unless it just was, like god.
Regress the hand, using your imagination: muscles, nerves, brain, functioning of organism, stability of f
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
A. A change bringing about itself, not a thing having an effect in itself - the latter is commonplace. Give me an example.
Why would I give an example - I haven't made an assertion to require one - merely suggested a possibility that, at this time, cannot be discounted.ChrisGB said:
B. arising spontaneously doesn't mean no cause. Background conditions would be the cause, because if they were not present, if there was actually exactly nothing present, there would be no arising.
2. Not necessarily - but then it does lead to more questions. What caused the background conditions to exist in the first place? You can't arbitrarily place a line in the sand by stating that one thing cannot exist without a cause (i.e. the thing that arose spontaneously) - but something else can (i.e. the background conditions).ChrisGB said:
It seems to me your claim of making this fit a god, which is of course back to front because the conclusion is god, not the premises
3. But you haven't arrived at that conclusion from first principles - you already held your belief in god and are tailoring the argument to fit that belief.ChrisGB said:
is just a cover for what you are doing - refusing to treat this argument as plausible out of a prior commitment to its falsity without even knowing what it's about. Fair?
I have refused no such thing. I am quite willing to accept a god as the creator of the universe, as the "first mover" if thats what the evidence points to......but it doesnt.4. There is no evidence that demonstrated or even suggests that a "first mover" and certainly not a designer god is required for our universe to exist. The best we can get back to at the moment is - "we dont know".
ChrisGB said:
C. Ask Gaspode what this is and why it cant regress infinitely. why mot read ip o this instead if amoing the same mistakes each time.
I have looked back at some of Gaspode's replies to this thread. One in particular caught my attention:"Yes indeed. Time, Space, and our entire frame of reference started at the Big Bang, and that's where the chain of physical causes and consequences started. Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking "What's further South than the South Pole?", it just doesn't make any sense."
5. Whilst this is commonly held view - it's by no means proven. Big bang theory only gets us back to a time 10^-34 seconds after the big bang had started. Beyond this - all current theories, mathematics etc break down. We dont yet know whether this is because this truly was the start of the causal chain and asking "what came before - really does have no meaning - or whether our models are simply not developed enough to be able to answer that question. Again - this isn't proof of anything - at best its speculation.
ChrisGB said:
Google Feser on essentially ordered causal series and youll probably get something useful. The standard example is the arm moving the saw sawing the wood - nothing happens if you take away the arm, the first mover of this series. All the other causes depend here and now on the arm, or there is no causal chain. clear?
6. Philosophical thought experiments are not proof/evidence. I understand how causal chains work thanks very much and i'd appreciate you not trying to patronise me......clear?The fact is however that in order for you to get to your first mover - you have to make the assumption that causality is ordered under all circumstances - your argument depends on this assumption being taken as fact.
ChrisGB said:
D. If the argument is sound
Thats a pretty big IF though - and some would argue that you haven't demonstrated that the argument is sound. You are of the opinion that it is - but thats not the same as proving it is.ChrisGB said:
.....then "pure act" exists, it is one, immaterial, non-temporal, all-powerful, simple etc etc because of what it is as pure act. There is much more too that can be deduced from it as pure act. It's not that I end up with the god I happen to believe in - you can't use prime mover as I say to get to Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism - it's that the argument gives you this.
7. Why not - surely that depends on how you structure the questions. The points you raise are loaded to bring you to the conclusions that it is the prime mover is the christian god/ Even if a prime mover where to exist - what information are you using to assert that it is the christian god - and not the simple background conditions you referred to earlier?ChrisGB said:
There is nothing working backwards here, every step follows logically.
Of course what you need to do is show that none of it follows, not just state as much.
Of course what you need to do is show that none of it follows, not just state as much.
Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 12th April 23:24
So I have a claim backed up by every example that can be thought of, yet you insist I need to prove what I've asserted?
You are demanding much higher standards than you do of your own beliefs.
2. You mean something might come from nothing? Can you explain?
Of course background conditions have a cause - there is on my view no such thing as a brute fact.
I think the problem you have here is your assumption that everything has a cause and yet not everything has a cause. On the one hand you say prime mover must have a cause, on the other hand things might arise spontaneously without a cause.
Don't you need to decide what your argument is?
Prime mover is the conclusion of studying essentially ordered causal series - there must be something purely actual, which THEREFORE means uncaused. It is not an arbitrary exception, but a logical conclusion forced by the premises.
3. People can come to accept God through these arguments, like Anthony Flew or Ed Feser or D Guller, or they can be Christians and find the rational basis for their belief is muc stronger than any opposing view, it makes little difference to the validity of the argument.
4. No designer God on my view, and nothing to do with origins of universe, but I agree we can't imagine the origin of causal power in every current event, but as I say, the argument conceptualises, to make thinking of such things possible, rather than imagining.
5. I meant Gaspode's explanation of essentially ordered causal series.
I'm not talking of origins of universe, but of what makes every cause and effect here and now possible, because of what it depends on in the moment, not in a long chain back to the Big Bang and/or beyond. I may have said that in every post on this argument over the last hundred pages, and only Gaspode seems to have got it.
6. I'm not trying to patronize but mention of regression, Big Bang, etc suggest you haven't understood difference between accidentally ordered causal series and essentially ordered causal series? It's a minor but essential point in the argument, so it needs addressing I think.
7. I've explained briefly a couple of times how pure actuality must be one, immaterial, inchangeable, outside time, etc. this is what a physisict's background conditions are?
You are assuming bad intentions on my part instead of that the premises force the conclusions I am drawing. Show that something purely actual could be material - this is a contradiction.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff