Evolution?

[Alceste]

You infer quite a bit from "psssss: Where did the particle come from?"
Also, exactly how do you define preternatural, and how do you support your assertion that the First Cause must by definition be preternatural?

As far as I can see, his argument goes "everything 'natural' must have a cause, therefore the original cause of everything natural must be supernatural". In other words, some things are not subject to the rule that 'everything must have a cause', and those things are 'uncaused'. Which, IMO, renders the posited "rule" a bit pointless and the entire argument... how does that go again... childish, circular rubbish, was it? Something like that.

 

[painted wolf]

Or how can you expect something Supernatural to have/need a natural cause?

wa:do

 

[logician]

Or how can you expect something Supernatural to have/need a natural cause?

wa:do

Or for that matter, matter and energy.

 

[painted wolf]

Or for that matter, matter and energy.

Hence the problem some have with the "big bang".

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

I wouldn't say "perfectly" but I suppose it does support your position.
Creator in my view is the personification of a fairly abstract deity... I use the term "Creator" because the Cherokee name for creator is unknown to me. (indeed it is known by very few)

wa:do

No, I understand. I'm not trying to pigeonhole you. My point was that, while your use of the term "Creator" might be different from others' including Christianity, you would still find the term of use in reference to your own beliefs, as a pantheist.

 

[Magic Man]

Or how can you expect something Supernatural to have/need a natural cause?

wa:do

Why not? If you're applying that need to everything natural, then allowing something else (something supernatural) to escape that need is quite arbitrary. It's basically just saying "God doesn't need a cause because I made up the rules for how God works, and that's not how god works".

(I hope I didn't misunderstand what you were saying. Please correct me if I did.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why not? If you're applying that need to everything natural, then allowing something else (something supernatural) to escape that need is quite arbitrary.

Why is it arbitrary? I would think that the preternatural would be ineffable and, by definition, that which 'escapes' the needs/constraints of the natural world.

 

[Magic Man]

Why is it arbitrary? I would think that the preternatural would be ineffable and, by definition, that which 'escapes' the needs/constraints of the natural world.

Because you're just making something up that can escape the problem you think the natural has. It's saying "This thing created the world, but the thing didn't need to be created because it's preternatural". It's only preternatural because you said it was preternatural, and so it only escapes the need for a creator because you said so.

(By the way, I appreciate your straightforward response on this. This is much more fun than tradig barbs.)

 

[painted wolf]

Why not? If you're applying that need to everything natural, then allowing something else (something supernatural) to escape that need is quite arbitrary. It's basically just saying "God doesn't need a cause because I made up the rules for how God works, and that's not how god works".

(I hope I didn't misunderstand what you were saying. Please correct me if I did.)

I don't see how it's arbitrary, that is the definition of "supernatural" after all. Something outside the bounds of the natural.
If the "super"natural needed a natural origin then it wouldn't be very "super" would it?

If one allows for an entire 'supernatural' realm of existance, then it becomes even less arbitrary.

(not that this is my personal argument, just pointing it out for the sake of discussion.)

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

I don't see how it's arbitrary, that is the definition of "supernatural" after all. Something outside the bounds of the natural.
If the "super"natural needed a natural origin then it wouldn't be very "super" would it?

If one allows for an entire 'supernatural' realm of existance, then it becomes even less arbitrary.

(not that this is my personal argument, just pointing it out for the sake of discussion.)

wa:do

But using the supernatural as an explanation like a first cause is just inserting an answer to have an answer. It doesn't realy solve anything.

Where did the universe come from?
God made it.
OK, then where did God come from?
He always was.
Why can't the universe just always have existed?
Because I said God created it.
Ah.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it arbitrary? I would think that the preternatural would be ineffable and, by definition, that which 'escapes' the needs/constraints of the natural world.

Personally, I think it's arbitrary to define God as "preternatural" (or whatever other term one wants to use to excuse why it can exist uncaused) and the universe itself as not, however, it's necessary for the First Cause Argument: the "first cause" must not be natural (so it can be uncaused) and everything else must be natural (so it must be caused by something else).

I've yet to see any set of attributes applied to the first cause (e.g. "preternaturality", "existing out of time") to explain why it can exist uncaused that can't just as validly be applied to the universe as a whole.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Because you're just making something up ...

Are you familiar with Goedel?

 

[Magic Man]

Are you familiar with Goedel?

Not particularly, why?

 

[painted wolf]

But using the supernatural as an explanation like a first cause is just inserting an answer to have an answer. It doesn't realy solve anything.

That's why I don't do supernatural explanations.

but again for the sake of discussion...

Where did the universe come from?
God made it.
OK, then where did God come from?
He always was.

with you so far...

Why can't the universe just always have existed?
Because I said God created it.

OH, but not here... Because the scientific evidence points to a first cause ... "Big Bang"
While steady state would have to account for the evidence pointing to "the bang".

Ah.

Indeed.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

OH, but not here... Because the scientific evidence points to a first cause ... "Big Bang"
While steady state would have to account for the evidence pointing to "the bang".


Indeed.

wa:do

Ah, here's the problem. That's not necessarily a first cause. The big bang only started the universe in its current form, it didn't start it altogether. The universe doesn't have to have been in a steady state. Since I can't remember the explanations well enough, I won't say any more about what I've read from Hawking, but he basically explained how the universe's "eternal existence" and the big bang theory come together.

 

[painted wolf]

Ah, here's the problem. That's not necessarily a first cause. The big bang only started the universe in its current form, it didn't start it altogether. The universe doesn't have to have been in a steady state. Since I can't remember the explanations well enough, I won't say any more about what I've read from Hawking, but he basically explained how the universe's "eternal existence" and the big bang theory come together.

Didn't Hawking also say that anything prior to the 'big bang' was just conjecture?

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

 

[Alceste]

Didn't Hawking also say that anything prior to the 'big bang' was just conjecture?

wa:do

No, he says there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. Time and space are two aspects of one "thing" (hence the term "spacetime"). Without space, there's no time, so there can't be a "before" the existence of the universe - only an "after".

 

[Alceste]

Not particularly, why?

Appeal to authority: Somebody famous for being clever was religious, therefore it is clever to be religious.

 

[painted wolf]

No, he says there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. Time and space are two aspects of one "thing" (hence the term "spacetime"). Without space, there's no time, so there can't be a "before" the existence of the universe - only an "after".

Funny stuff time.

Appeal to authority: Somebody famous for being clever was religious, therefore it is clever to be religious.

Wouldn't this also work against bringing up Hawking?

wa:do