Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Zosimus]

Nonsense. If everything has a cause then God has a cause. After all you just said everything and forgot the special pleading to render your God immune. If everything did not have a cause there is no reason why it can not apply to how things besides God. The false dilemma was God or infinite regress, you forgot what your own comments contains. God also pushes the problems one step back and explains nothing while BB and M-theory are explanations.

Your response has nothing to do with what I said. Either everything has a cause or it's not true that everything has a cause. In no way does this imply that God, if he even exists, has a cause. Nor does this suggest that God doesn't have a cause. The only point that I was making was that unless you postulate at least one uncaused thing, then causes must continue back forever into infinity. This presupposes, of course, that you think that causes preceed their effects temporarlly. If you think that causes can follow their effects, then circularity can be postulated, though I don't see how that solves much.

Too bad from your other comments and your radical skepticism no one can know anything including a priori. You contradict yourself. You do not actually accept the points you use against science and knowledge, you only use it to reject ideas you do not like

I do not. And I don't know what you mean by "it" because I thought were were talking about the points I made against science.

Contradicting yourself. After all how do you justify such a claim as sitting when you deny all methods of justifications. Truth is a definition, what is actually true is not a matter of a definiation.

When I define a term, I do not feel the need to justify the logical truth of the terms used in the definition. Should I?

You conflate truth and knowledge thus this is just a red herring away from my point which is about knowledge. My point still stands as you have yet to actually address it.

Truth can be known a priori. Not all truth, mind you, but some. I have already explained why I think so, and nothing in your response refutes the claim.

It is nonsense since science is not certain about 100% certain it is true knowledge while the trilemma is. Science is pragmatic nor is it the absolute source of knowledge. You didn't understand your own point, read it again.

I'm certainly aware that science is no kind of source of knowledge. That's my point.

So you avoid an answer to your question because it came from a Protestant. How convenient for you. Willful ignorance is not a defense.

No, you have serious reading comprehension issues. I did not say that I avoid an answer because it came from a Protestant. I said that most of his argument doesn't apply to me because I'm not a protestant hence I do not have the typical protestant beliefs that he spends so much time attacking. I do not believe that there are uncriticizable a priori truths running around out there. You're confusing my position with that of science.

Well you are making claims which present science as an absolute source of knowledge and 100% knowledge. You conflate the target of your arguments with science via projection as scientific realism. Your mistake. I am just pointing it out.

No, I am not -- though I will certainly use scientific claims to convince believers in science. Of course, as I've said before, if you believe in science then you shouldn't believe in science.

Read Grunbaums response to Quine in which both agree the point is trivial or weak since it only applies to scientific realism. Both Quine and Duhem stepped back from this radical view. One major issue is if that if their views are a problem for science it is a major problem for lay beliefs such as everyday beliefs we form outside of the methods used by science. You can read Zammito's criticism f such a stance as Quine/Duhem.

I'm certainly aware of the response, and I'm glad Quine is persuaded by it, but I'm not. Yes, it's true that when presented with a black swan, researchers may refuse to believe its a swan at first but eventually they will come around to believing that it is a swan (or dying off and being replaced by researchers who are not as stubborn as the original researchers). The key word is eventually. Yes, eventually the falsified position will fall out of fashion or its adherents will die out. What does that have to do with what I have said? Nothing.

You'll note, if you pay attention, that I am most active in the forum "evidence FOR creationism" in which I deny that it is possible to present evidence FOR something. You can only present evidence AGAINST something. How do any of Grunbaum's points argue against that simple fact?

Yes you did. God or infinite regression. That is two answers you put forward to resolve the issues you think exists.

Exactly. Either there is a series of never-ending causes or there is something that is not caused, and you define that something as God. What's the problem?

Yet I am constantly pointing out mistakes you and the video make. If you source was not the video it was just as poor in quality as the video.

Again your radical skepticism is amusing as you jump back and forth between rejecting views you do not like along with the methods used to develop such views yet you have no issues using these methods when it covers something you agree with such as cosmology.

This is no different from quoting the Bible to a Christian as proof of something. In no way am I required to believe in the Bible to do so.

 

[NoorNoor]

I didn't place God as any kind of an answer. I'm agnostic.

Yes, you didn't but your rational thinking/logic clearly points to a need of an absolute truth. The kind of truth that gives definition/reference to every thing but is totally free from any need for a defining reference.

You do understand the need for an absolute first cause (option #3 of the trilemma). You are OK with that perspective. You could be even proud of it. It's not something to be ashamed off. It's a logical view (based on your overall understanding of science/philosophy). but this is your limit. You can't take any step further. It appears to me that you are afraid that any step further would take your status down (as viewed by others), from knowledge to ignorance. You are ashamed to admit that God and absolute truth is not that different at all. Absolute truth or maybe singular self-subsistent substance (God of Spinoza) may look more appealing to people, as an indication of knowledge/intelligence. on the other hand, if you use the word "God", then it would be a sign of regression and ignorance.

Logic/ philosophy is limited in the sense that, it can only take you to the understanding of the need for the existence of God (absolute truth) but this would be as far as you can go. If you actually end to the belief that God exists, then why is it difficult to believe that every thing in existence has a purpose and that God can and did communicate with humans. It wouldn't be logical to think of (the existing) God to be just assuming a passive role or is not capable of communicating with humans.

 

[Shad]

Your response has nothing to do with what I said. Either everything has a cause or it's not true that everything has a cause. In no way does this imply that God, if he even exists, has a cause. Nor does this suggest that God doesn't have a cause. The only point that I was making was that unless you postulate at least one uncaused thing, then causes must continue back forever into infinity. This presupposes, of course, that you think that causes preceed their effects temporarlly. If you think that causes can follow their effects, then circularity can be postulated, though I don't see how that solves much.

You said everything has a cause not I. This includes God. I only pointed out your statement is in error. I expected your special pleading as it is typical after such a mistake. You are now backpedaling to rescue God from your own mistake along with use a model of time as if this model is true knowledge, which you claim is impossible to know. So all you have done is step back from your radical skepticism when it helps arguments that you accept. Merely claiming God is uncaused, a possibility, does not mean it is a likely probability. One can assign any definition they like to an unknown entity they like, it is meaningless sophistry.

I do not. And I don't know what you mean by "it" because I thought were were talking about the points I made against science.

Your radical skepticism goes well beyond science. However as I pointed out you only use the arguments against views you reject but not views you accept. You do not practice what you preach, you apply it in an arbitrary fashion

When I define a term, I do not feel the need to justify the logical truth of the terms used in the definition. Should I?

You use the definition of true for a context originated statement, that you are sitting at your computer. You later remove part of this context, namely time, to render it not absolute. However by changing the time context your point relies on a fallacy

Truth can be known a priori. Not all truth, mind you, but some. I have already explained why I think so, and nothing in your response refutes the claim.

According to your views knowledge is impossible. A prior is a form of knowledge. Again you do not practice what you preach, you only use it for views you disagree with then reject radical skeptism for a view you favour

I'm certainly aware that science is no kind of source of knowledge. That's my point.

No you should be arguing that it is not the absolute source of knowledge, as per the arguments you cite. However since you change this from "absolute" to merely a form of non-absolute knowledge you have against rejected the very arguments you used previously.

No, you have serious reading comprehension issues. I did not say that I avoid an answer because it came from a Protestant. I said that most of his argument doesn't apply to me because I'm not a protestant hence I do not have the typical protestant beliefs that he spends so much time attacking. I do not believe that there are uncriticizable a priori truths running around out there. You're confusing my position with that of science.

The radical skepticism you used against science applies to more than just science. It also applies to all your interaction with the "world". You used the Protestant view to reject even reading the source. Ignore the Protestant rants and focus on the points attacking your radical skepticism.

No, I am not -- though I will certainly use scientific claims to convince believers in science. Of course, as I've said before, if you believe in science then you shouldn't believe in science.

You use models of time for your argument thus contradict this statement.

I'm certainly aware of the response, and I'm glad Quine is persuaded by it, but I'm not. Yes, it's true that when presented with a black swan, researchers may refuse to believe its a swan at first but eventually they will come around to believing that it is a swan (or dying off and being replaced by researchers who are not as stubborn as the original researchers). The key word is eventually. Yes, eventually the falsified position will fall out of fashion or its adherents will die out. What does that have to do with what I have said? Nothing.

You used Quine to support your views yet were oblivious to the rejection of his own views. This undermines a supporting point of your views since one primary basis is trivial.

You'll note, if you pay attention, that I am most active in the forum "evidence FOR creationism" in which I deny that it is possible to present evidence FOR something. You can only present evidence AGAINST something. How do any of Grunbaum's points argue against that simple fact?

It undermines your radical skepticism which you have used against science. You create a strawman of science so your arguments seem valid but in fact are not due to your distortions.

Exactly. Either there is a series of never-ending causes or there is something that is not caused, and you define that something as God. What's the problem?

Defining an entity does not mean it exists.

This is no different from quoting the Bible to a Christian as proof of something. In no way am I required to believe in the Bible to do so.

No I am pointing out you do not follow your radical skepticism you merely parrot it against views you reject yet drop it for views you accept such as rationalism.

Radical skepticism is a dead-end. To even be discussing it you violate it's view points it puts forward. The possibility of doubt does not mean there is probability of doubt for each question humanity may have. Radical skepticism is also psychological untenable as everyone must accept specific views in order to function. It relies on an abstract as if it has applicable in every case which is false.

 

[Segev Moran]

Logical fallacy. Just because it worked once in the past does not mean that it will continue to work in the future.

That wasn't the issue.. We are talking about reliability...
I Can have a reliable computer.. the fact it will at some point fail.. obviously.. it doesn't make it un-reliable while it is working.

Faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

" Faith is believing something to be true.. even if it has ZERO evidence as such..."....

Ahhh.. Duh?????

This entire argument merely serves to reinforce my point: science is faith-based.

Ahhh. I Give up

 

[Sapiens]

I think the real quote is:

 

[Zosimus]

You said everything has a cause not I. This includes God. I only pointed out your statement is in error. I expected your special pleading as it is typical after such a mistake. You are now backpedaling to rescue God from your own mistake along with use a model of time as if this model is true knowledge, which you claim is impossible to know. So all you have done is step back from your radical skepticism when it helps arguments that you accept. Merely claiming God is uncaused, a possibility, does not mean it is a likely probability. One can assign any definition they like to an unknown entity they like, it is meaningless sophistry.

Okay, I think it's pretty clear that we need to start at a more basic level because your reading comprehension is so bad that you cannot grasp the ideas under discussion.

You claim that I said that everything has a cause. This is untrue. What I said was Every effect has a cause. When I say that every effect has a cause, I mean that each effect from the first effect to the last effect has a cause. I say that because that's what we mean by effect. An effect is something that has a cause. If it doesn't have a cause, then it's not an effect. Things that don't have causes cannot be labeled effects. This is because all effects have causes, by very definition. A cause is something that creates an effect. If something does not create an effect, then it's not a cause. It turns out that the word cause is defined as something that creates an effect. So when I say that every effect has a cause, I mean to say that to the extent that something is an effect, it has a cause. If thing X is an effect, then thing X has a cause–cause and effect. I hope that's clear to you. Effects are things that have causes, and causes are things that create effects.

Now, if you think that I said that everything has a cause, you must have assumed that I thought that everything was an effect because effects are things that have causes. However, I never said that everything was an effect. Thus, I never said that everything had a cause. I can think of a number of things that do not have a cause. The set of all sets, for example, does not have a cause. Hence, we cannot label it an effect. That's because things without causes are not considered effects. Since the set of all sets is not an effect, it does not have a cause. Accordingly, we have identified at least one thing that does not have a cause and thus cannot be considered an effect because only things that have causes can be considered effects. The set of all sets is part of the set of things that do not have causes and also a part of the set of things that are not effects–cause and effect. I hope that's clear to you.

Next, if you think that I included God in the set of all things that have causes, then you must think that I thought God was an effect. This is because things that have causes are considered effects. Things that don't have causes are not considered effects. Things that are not effects do not have causes–cause and effect. I hope that's clear to you.

At no point in this thread or in any other have I ever claimed that God was an effect nor have I claimed that God had a cause, a claim that would imply that God was an effect, because only effects have causes. Things that do not have causes are not effects. Now, I never said that God was an effect because I don't know anything about God; thus, I cannot determine whether God is a cause, an effect, or something else. In fact, I don't even know whether God exists. Thus my ignorance about God causes me to be agnostic. Another way to say this is that my agnosticism is an effect of my ignorance about God. This is because an effect is something created by a cause. Since my lack of knowledge about God causes me to be agnostic, the agnosticism can be considered an effect of my lack of knowledge. Effects are things that have causes. Causes are things that create effects. The topic is cause and effect. These two are related because causes cause effects. Effects are caused by causes. I hope that's clear to you.

I include this video so that you can more clearly understand the relationship between a cause and an effect.

 

[viole]

The only point that I was making was that unless you postulate at least one uncaused thing, then causes must continue back forever into infinity

Mmh. Nope. I can easily show to you that you can have a chain cause-effect, without a first cause, that takes one hour (not infinite forever) to unfold.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

Okay, I think it's pretty clear that we need to start at a more basic level because your reading comprehension is so bad that you cannot grasp the ideas under discussion.

When you can read your own citation let me know. Maybe read your own comments again so you can spot your mistake

You claim that I said that everything has a cause. This is untrue. What I said was Every effect has a cause. When I say that every effect has a cause, I mean that each effect from the first effect to the last effect has a cause. I say that because that's what we mean by effect. An effect is something that has a cause. If it doesn't have a cause, then it's not an effect. Things that don't have causes cannot be labeled effects. This is because all effects have causes, by very definition. A cause is something that creates an effect. If something does not create an effect, then it's not a cause. It turns out that the word cause is defined as something that creates an effect. So when I say that every effect has a cause, I mean to say that to the extent that something is an effect, it has a cause. If thing X is an effect, then thing X has a cause–cause and effect. I hope that's clear to you. Effects are things that have causes, and causes are things that create effects.

Liar.

Either everything has a cause or it's not true that everything has a cause.

Opps....

Now, if you think that I said that everything has a cause, you must have assumed that I thought that everything was an effect because effects are things that have causes. However, I never said that everything was an effect. Thus, I never said that everything had a cause. I can think of a number of things that do not have a cause. The set of all sets, for example, does not have a cause. Hence, we cannot label it an effect. That's because things without causes are not considered effects. Since the set of all sets is not an effect, it does not have a cause. Accordingly, we have identified at least one thing that does not have a cause and thus cannot be considered an effect because only things that have causes can be considered effects. The set of all sets is part of the set of things that do not have causes and also a part of the set of things that are not effects–cause and effect. I hope that's clear to you.

Except you did say exactly what I said you did.

Next, if you think that I included God in the set of all things that have causes, then you must think that I thought God was an effect. This is because things that have causes are considered effects. Things that don't have causes are not considered effects. Things that are not effects do not have causes–cause and effect. I hope that's clear to you.

Waffling to cover your mistake

At no point in this thread or in any other have I ever claimed that God was an effect nor have I claimed that God had a cause, a claim that would imply that God was an effect, because only effects have causes. Things that do not have causes are not effects. Now, I never said that God was an effect because I don't know anything about God; thus, I cannot determine whether God is a cause, an effect, or something else. In fact, I don't even know whether God exists. Thus my ignorance about God causes me to be agnostic. Another way to say this is that my agnosticism is an effect of my ignorance about God. This is because an effect is something created by a cause. Since my lack of knowledge about God causes me to be agnostic, the agnosticism can be considered an effect of my lack of knowledge. Effects are things that have causes. Causes are things that create effects. The topic is cause and effect. These two are related because causes cause effects. Effects are caused by causes. I hope that's clear to you.

More waffling

I include this video so that you can more clearly understand the relationship between a cause and an effect.

Which is a model that according to your view has no justification thus your point is moot by your own views. However as I pointed out before you abandon your views when it helps your argument.

 

[Zosimus]

When you can read your own citation let me know. Maybe read your own comments again so you can spot your mistake



Liar.



Opps....




Except you did say exactly what I said you did.



Waffling to cover your mistake



More waffling



Which is a model that according to your view has no justification thus your point is moot by your own views. However as I pointed out before you abandon your views when it helps your argument.

Now the light dawns!! You think that when I said:

"Either everything has a cause or it's not true that everything has a cause."

That I am claiming that everything has a cause. This is because you do not understand the meaning of the either... or... construction.

When I say:

Either John will go to the store or Mary will go to the store, I mean that one of the two people (John or Mary) will go to the store but not both.

So by saying "Either John will go to the store or..." I am not claiming that John will definitely go to the store. I am simply mentioning this as one possibility out of two.

 

[NoorNoor]

Mmh. Nope. I can easily show to you that you can have a chain cause-effect, without a first cause, that takes one hour (not infinite forever) to unfold.

Ciao

- viole

Unless you use a circular logic, if we reject infinite regress, then the chain has a start. The start has to be a cause.

 

[viole]

Unless you use a circular logic, if we reject infinite regress, then the chain has a start. The start has to be a cause.

Nope.

No circular logic.

I can easlly show to you that there is a possible infinite chain of causes/effects causing X, that takes no longer than an hour and has no first cause.

Ciao

- fiole

 

[Shad]

Now the light dawns!! You think that when I said:

"Either everything has a cause or it's not true that everything has a cause."

You are building an argument which is intended to render God immune to your own criteria solely based on your defining God as uncaused. This is a tiresome argument always used. A metaphysical naturalist can merely define a point in nature as uncaused as easily as you have done for God. Yet you do not include this, or any other speculation, as option since you only want to arrive at your presupposition.

That I am claiming that everything has a cause. This is because you do not understand the meaning of the either... or... construction.

No I am cutting off your argument as I heard it many times before. It is nothing but speculation and defination games.

When I say:

Either John will go to the store or Mary will go to the store, I mean that one of the two people (John or Mary) will go to the store but not both.

This comparison is flawed. You have already omitted ideas you do not like. Maybe Bob went to the store.

So by saying "Either John will go to the store or..." I am not claiming that John will definitely go to the store. I am simply mentioning this as one possibility out of two.

Infinite regression forces the conclusion to only align with one possibility. You declare the only option as God when it is in fact merely an uncaused caused. Defining something as uncaused does not make it so. Nature is uncaused. See how easy that is?

 

[NoorNoor]

Nope.

No circular logic.

I can easlly show to you that there is a possible infinite chain of causes/effects causing X, that takes no longer than an hour and has no first cause.

Ciao

- fiole

"Cause/effect" chain has to start with a cause. After the first cause, every item on the chain is both an effect and also a cause for a subsequent item. Only the first cause is unique in the sense that, it's neither an effect nor it needs a cause. Without the first cause, the entire chain do not exist.

You already made a claim. Do you want to demonstrate it?

 

[viole]

"Cause/effect" chain has to start with a cause. After the first cause, every item on the chain is both an effect and also a cause for a subsequent item. Only the first cause is unique in the sense that, it's neither an effect nor it needs a cause. Without the first cause, the entire chain do not exist.

You already made a claim. Do you want to demonstrate it?

X exists now.
X has been caused by X1 1/2 hour ago
X1 has been caused by X2 1/4 hour ago
X2 has been caused by X3 1/8 hour ago
X3 has been caused by X4 1/16 hour ago
....... (Infinite, always divide by two the time between causations)

As you can see the chain takes one hour of time, despite being infinite and having no first cause. And every Xn is justified (caused) by the existence of its predecessor. So, everything that starts to exist has a cause, as Craig would say. What do you want more?

You ask who starts the chain. But this is question begging. If chains always needed to be started, then who started the kind of chains that do contain a first cause? Remember: the first cause is also part of the chain.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

X exists now.
X has been caused by X1 1/2 hour ago
X1 has been caused by X2 1/4 hour ago
X2 has been caused by X3 1/8 hour ago
X3 has been caused by X4 1/16 hour ago
....... (Infinite, always divide by two the time between causations)

As you can see the chain takes one hour of time, despite being infinite and having no first cause. And every Xn is justified (caused) by the existence of its predecessor. So, everything that starts to exist has a cause, as Craig would say. What do you want more?

No, you assume you proved a starting point (one hour ago before X) with no cause. Which is not true. The process will keep approaching the starting point forever but will never get there. It's an infinite regress process (with no starting point) that takes place in a finite time. You will never get to this claimed starting point with no cause. The one hour time frame (at X infinity), is only a mathematical concept but it's a limit that can never be reached. Your example is only a trick to avoid getting to the starting point.

You only proved that,(in principal) any unit can be divided to infinite number of parts. If you have a cake and keep giving me half of what you have forever, the cake will never finish. At infinity, you assume the cake is "almost 0" but it's not. You still have a part that can be divided. If we understand that size is relative, then it's never a zero, you will always have a unit that can be divided. Even so, It's an infinite process but I"ll never get the complete cake.

You ask who starts the chain. But this is question begging. If chains always needed to be started, then who started the kind of chains that do contain a first cause?

your example is an infinite regress. It neither contains a first cause nor a starting point. (you are only approaching the starting point but never get there.)

Remember: the first cause is also part of the chain

No, the problem is when you consider the first cause as a part of the chain like any other part. It's totally not. It's absolutely unique. If we forget the first cause, all other parts are effects that had a beginning and dependent on a cause. All parts are both effects and causes for subsequent parts. The first cause has no beginning (its not an effect) and has no dependency on a cause. It's the cause for the entire chain. In fact, the chain has only two totally different parts. A single cause and an effect (that encompasses all subsequent sub-effects). These two parts are not equal. You can not apply same rules on both.

 

[Zosimus]

You are building an argument which is intended to render God immune to your own criteria solely based on your defining God as uncaused. This is a tiresome argument always used. A metaphysical naturalist can merely define a point in nature as uncaused as easily as you have done for God. Yet you do not include this, or any other speculation, as option since you only want to arrive at your presupposition.

I have never defined God as caused nor uncaused. I take no position on the matter. I am agnostic.

No I am cutting off your argument as I heard it many times before. It is nothing but speculation and defination games.

Defination games? I'll try to avoid definating things in a way that you do not want to see them definated.

This comparison is flawed. You have already omitted ideas you do not like. Maybe Bob went to the store.

It's not a comparison. It's an explanation of the meaning of the word EITHER. When I say: EITHER x OR y I mean that one or the other may happen, but not both. So when I say:

EITHER God is uncaused
OR It's not the case that God is uncaused

I am making a simple statement of the The Law of the Excluded Middle.

Let G = God is uncaused
Therefore:
Gv~G <---- that's a tautology.

You see, if I say: ~(Gv~G) then I'm really saying that it's BOTH true AND false that God is uncaused. Oh crap... he didn't understand EITHER...OR ... what makes me think he will understand BOTH...AND?!

Infinite regression forces the conclusion to only align with one possibility. You declare the only option as God when it is in fact merely an uncaused caused. Defining something as uncaused does not make it so. Nature is uncaused. See how easy that is?

No, EITHER there is at least one uncaused thing OR there are no uncaused things. Again, this is a simple statement of the Law of the Excluded Middle.

If there is an uncaused thing and if we define that thing as God, then God exists.
Otherwise, God does not exist.

It's a simple logical statement that everyone should be able to agree with. Either God or NOT God.

What's so hard about that?

 

[Zosimus]

X exists now.
X has been caused by X1 1/2 hour ago
X1 has been caused by X2 1/4 hour ago
X2 has been caused by X3 1/8 hour ago
X3 has been caused by X4 1/16 hour ago
....... (Infinite, always divide by two the time between causations)

As you can see the chain takes one hour of time, despite being infinite and having no first cause. And every Xn is justified (caused) by the existence of its predecessor. So, everything that starts to exist has a cause, as Craig would say. What do you want more?

You ask who starts the chain. But this is question begging. If chains always needed to be started, then who started the kind of chains that do contain a first cause? Remember: the first cause is also part of the chain.

Ciao

- viole

That is, by far, the stupidest argument I have ever read. You propose to prove that it's possible to have a chain that is not an infinite regress and you claim to prove it by posting a chain that is an infinite regress?!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Lots of typing and arguments being made here, for seemingly no real purpose...

Even if we assume that first cause argument is worth a damn, so what?

What causeless thing do you propose caused the first cause?

You theists are setting up this argument solely for the purpose of opening the door to the idea of the existence of god, are you not?
By your own reasoning, then, and using your own argument that the negation of an idea does not necessarily mean that a countering idea is accurate, what does it even matter?

Unless you are prepared to support the thing that you're trying to argue for, you're just wasting your breath.
The first cause could, using your own logic, just as likely be an Invisible Purple Cosmic Elephant as it could be your deity of choice, right? (But please bring on the probability arguments, either way.)

I could also argue for the very reasonable position of crediting the causeless first cause as being without object...a mindless moment of chance...but then you'll start your prepared arguments about intelligent design, won't you? "Only a conscious entity could lay out the laws of the Universe in such an elegant way..." or whatever.

I mean, we've all been down this road so many times before. Why don't you just go ahead and pull out your big guns and tell us what you really want to tell us?

 

[Zosimus]

Lots of typing and arguments being made here, for seemingly no real purpose...

Even if we assume that first cause argument is worth a damn, so what?

What causeless thing do you propose caused the first cause?

You theists are setting up this argument solely for the purpose of opening the door to the idea of the existence of god, are you not?
By your own reasoning, then, and using your own argument that the negation of an idea does not necessarily mean that a countering idea is accurate, what does it even matter?

Unless you are prepared to support the thing that you're trying to argue for, you're just wasting your breath.
The first cause could, using your own logic, just as likely be an Invisible Purple Cosmic Elephant as it could be your deity of choice, right? (But please bring on the probability arguments, either way.)

I could also argue for the very reasonable position of crediting the causeless first cause as being without object...a mindless moment of chance...but then you'll start your prepared arguments about intelligent design, won't you? "Only a conscious entity could lay out the laws of the Universe in such an elegant way..." or whatever.

I mean, we've all been down this road so many times before. Why don't you just go ahead and pull out your big guns and tell us what you really want to tell us?

What do I want to tell you? I want to say that since God might exist and since there are no data to help us determine whether he does or does not, the most logical stance in regard to God is one of AGNOSTICISM.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What do I want to tell you? I want to say that since God might exist and since there are no data to help us determine whether he does or does not, the most logical stance in regard to God is one of AGNOSTICISM.

Great!

That's certainly a lot easier to read than all of the other bickering and crap, don't you think?