Page 1 of 27 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 268

Thread: The Causation Argument

  1. Top | #1
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,828
    Rep Power
    21

    The Causation Argument

    The proof of god based on this this argument has several forms.

    Generally the argument says all things we see occur through a causal chain. A bat hits a ball. Ball flies.

    Therefore the universe must have had a first causation, and that was god. Primarily because of a few lines in an ancient text.

    Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,443
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    9,287
    Rep Power
    63
    Because then those people wouldn't behave themselves, and then where would we be?

  3. Top | #3
    Deus Meumque Jus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada's London
    Posts
    11,413
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    20,927
    Rep Power
    55
    I'm of the perspective that you need to put this argument, and creation stories more broadly in their proper social context. In retrospect they're easily falsifiable when you have the benefit of a scientific understanding of the universe, but before materialism was knowable a 'creator' was a satisfying solution to the problem, and that's all that mattered.

    These people weren't debating theism on the internet, they were doing their best not to starve to death. Why the universe existed wasn't a big concern.

    Now the belief persists because of thousands of years of inertia, and it's smarty-pants people from the modern era who finally have the time/inclination to quash it.

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,779
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,835
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post

    Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?
    Indeed why not? You show 'em steve et al...

    your causation argument.

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    20,533
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,033
    Rep Power
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post

    Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?
    Indeed why not? You show em steve et al...

    your causation argument.
    I've offered mine, before.
    We have no experience with beginnings. No examples of anything being created.
    Everything we experience is just a reconfiguration of something that existed before.
    A seed gathers resources to become a tree, which becomes lumber, which becomes a chair, which becomes kindling, which burns to ash which fertilizes a field...

    The configuration of universe parts that we call 'Learner' wasn't created when Learner was born. There was no 'Learner' 500 years ago, but all the components currently assembled to be Learner did exist. Parts were in your great-whatever grandparents, parts were in cows, parts in minerals in the ground, parts in all sorts of stages of the water cycle.

    Everything we know about, every example you give for something coming into existance is really just a rearrangement of already-existing components.

    So, why would we not assume the universe as a whole works the same way? An infinite cycle of, maybe, collapse, rearrange, and explode? What tells you there was a 'beginning?'

  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,779
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,835
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    I've offered mine, before.
    We have no experience with beginnings. No examples of anything being created.
    Everything we experience is just a reconfiguration of something that existed before.
    A seed gathers resources to become a tree, which becomes lumber, which becomes a chair, which becomes kindling, which burns to ash which fertilizes a field...

    The configuration of universe parts that we call 'Learner' wasn't created when Learner was born. There was no 'Learner' 500 years ago, but all the components currently assembled to be Learner did exist. Parts were in your great-whatever grandparents, parts were in cows, parts in minerals in the ground, parts in all sorts of stages of the water cycle.

    Everything we know about, every example you give for something coming into existance is really just a rearrangement of already-existing components.

    So, why would we not assume the universe as a whole works the same way? An infinite cycle of, maybe, collapse, rearrange, and explode? What tells you there was a 'beginning?'
    I like your explanation pov. Energy more so could have always existed, the physical universe part would fit the continous cycle bit e.g. matter breaks-down to its base energy or matter gets reconstituted into other matter.

    I would ponder on the idea (outside theism)...If energy has always exited why wouldn't it evolve (for lack of better contextual word) with endless time advantage, into a conscious-thinking creative entity like humans have evolved as conscious-thinking creative entities in the natural physical world?

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,443
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    9,287
    Rep Power
    63
    Because intelligence, even the crudest of sensory-feedback mechanisms found in the lowest of life forms, provides such an enormous advantage over non-intelligence in obtaining resources and reproduction.

    Such an advantage comes at a high cost, which is why we don't see intelligence everywhere, but if there was no payoff at all then no one would play.

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,779
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,835
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    Because intelligence, even the crudest of sensory-feedback mechanisms found in the lowest of life forms, provides such an enormous advantage over non-intelligence in obtaining resources and reproduction.

    Such an advantage comes at a high cost, which is why we don't see intelligence everywhere, but if there was no payoff at all then no one would play.

    I dunno, to be aware doesn't need sensory feedback perhaps imo. The main intelligence, would not be everywhere like the brain in a larger body.

  9. Top | #9
    Deus Meumque Jus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada's London
    Posts
    11,413
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    20,927
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    I've offered mine, before.
    We have no experience with beginnings. No examples of anything being created.
    Everything we experience is just a reconfiguration of something that existed before.
    A seed gathers resources to become a tree, which becomes lumber, which becomes a chair, which becomes kindling, which burns to ash which fertilizes a field...

    The configuration of universe parts that we call 'Learner' wasn't created when Learner was born. There was no 'Learner' 500 years ago, but all the components currently assembled to be Learner did exist. Parts were in your great-whatever grandparents, parts were in cows, parts in minerals in the ground, parts in all sorts of stages of the water cycle.

    Everything we know about, every example you give for something coming into existance is really just a rearrangement of already-existing components.

    So, why would we not assume the universe as a whole works the same way? An infinite cycle of, maybe, collapse, rearrange, and explode? What tells you there was a 'beginning?'
    I like your explanation pov. Energy more so could have always existed, the physical universe part would fit the continous cycle bit e.g. matter breaks-down to its base energy or matter gets reconstituted into other matter.

    I would ponder on the idea (outside theism)...If energy has always exited why wouldn't it evolve (for lack of better contextual word) with endless time advantage, into a conscious-thinking creative entity like humans have evolved as conscious-thinking creative entities in the natural physical world?
    Evolution is only relevant to matter. Thermodynamics are what caused life to come into existence by creating a constant input of energy, allowing life to increase in complexity rather than stay inert.

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,779
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,835
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post

    Evolution is only relevant to matter. Thermodynamics are what caused life to come into existence by creating a constant input of energy, allowing life to increase in complexity rather than stay inert.
    Abiogensis you would call it but no dispute there, evolution being relevant to matter (only as far as we know).
    Energy doing certain things and matter (each element) have unique behavioural properties e.g. governed by universe laws so to speak.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •