- Every effect requires a cause equal to or greater than the effect
- If consciousness is greater than but not not separate from matter-energy and the greater is, the greater must be eternally.
So, does free will exist? Yes, but limited inasmuch as we identify with the lesser.
Oh, I can hear the protests now. "These are
a priori assumptions." Well, yeah, they are. But let's also be honest: no one is neutral or objective in the sense of not bringing their presuppositions to the table. Even the idea of reasonable neutrality is an
a priori assumption.
Since you've chosen to ignore me, this response isn't for you, but to correct your mistake so that others won't be fooled by this.
Your first assumption wrong, not because it is
a priori, but because it is inconsistent with reality.
"Every effect requires a cause equal to or greater than the effect" is wrong because of conservation of mass-energy. Every effect requires a cause equal to the effect, never greater than. This basically says nothing about god whatsoever.
Your second statement is an if statement that doesn't validate; i.e. you need to prove the condition "If consciousness is greater than but not not separate from matter-energy" before it becomes useful. Additionally, since it is based on your first argument it lacks validity.
They spend all of their time and energy denying and ridiculing theism and very little elaborating on their own beliefs with respect to ultimate causation.
I admit freely that I do not have any answers about ultimate causation. I am not scientifically qualified to make even basic educated guesses on the subject.
However, I don't have to know the answer to know what
isn't the answer. Theism fails as a theory for ultimate causation because it only adds a step to the problem. If god created the universe, who created god? And if god "just existed", then why can't the universe have "just existed" too? Theism doesn't answer the question of the ultimate cause, it only complicates it.
But refutation is more than denial, and ridicule and mechanistic descriptions. To be consistent, it must demonstrate and explain in a positive sense the comprehensibility, coherence and consistency the motive power in terms of the engine.
Refutation of a theory does not require that one offer a competing theory. I don't need to know to be able to tell that you don't know either. One is better off not knowing than "knowing" incorrect information.
Failing in that, it says nothing.
It says that theism is wrong.
