Is the First Cause argument Valid?

[muhammad_isa]

..no actual objective evidence demonstrated at all.

I beg to disagree, it is that your idea of what is objective is different from mine.

When objective evidence is presented, you just employ diversionary tactics to repeat over and over that "it doesn't make G-d real".
like I said .. tough .. whether you like it or not, there is plenty of evidence.
When everything that is presented to you ends up with the same reply "it's all fiction, you can't prove it", it begins to get rather tedious..
.."has the penny dropped"?

Of COURSE you can deny all the evidence by claiming this fallacy or that, but it doesn't change anything .. your attitude is one of negativity. All you are achieving is how to be smart in making an argument .. because you have your fingers in your ears.

la la la .. you can't prove it .. argumentum populum

 

[Sheldon]

I beg to disagree, it is that your idea of what is objective is different from mine.

When objective evidence is presented, you just employ diversionary tactics to repeat over and over that "it doesn't make G-d real".
like I said .. tough .. whether you like it or not, there is plenty of evidence.
When everything that is presented to you ends up with the same reply "it's all fiction, you can't prove it", it begins to get rather tedious..
.."has the penny dropped"?

Of COURSE you can deny all the evidence by claiming this fallacy or that, but it doesn't change anything .. your attitude is one of negativity. All you are achieving is how to be smart in making an argument .. because you have your fingers in your ears.

la la la .. you can't prove it .. argumentum populum

Quote one piece of objective evidence for a deity from your last half dozen posts, embolden it for me. Now to be clear, not one of your bare claims it exists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Now to be clear, not one of your bare claims it exists.

You "win"

 

[Trailblazer]

It's a subjective claim, there is no objective evidence anyone has ever received any revelation from any deity.

No, it is not a subjective claim, it is simply a claim.
No, there is no proof that anyone ever received any revelation from any deity but there is objective evidence that indicates that transpired throughout history.

 

[Sheldon]

You "win"

Win what? Are you saying you can't offer anything?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're getting carried away..
My objection is to people who claim everything "just happens to be".
That is an unjustified claim, imo.

... unless it's about your god, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The G-d of Abraham has many independent witnesses from different eras.
You can accuse them all of being a conspiracy, but that would be just a claim by atheists, who wish to ignore the strength of the evidence.

And none of it is verifiable or demonstrable in any way. So we have no good reason to insert God(s) into the equation.

What I had said was this:
There's no justification to call that thing "God." And, even if you could show it was a God, you'd still have a lot of work ahead of you to show it's the specific God(s) you believe in.

By the way, what is a god? What are its properties? What right do we have to insert unexplained and undefined deities into our understanding of how the universe came to be?

Mechanism? This reality would not be here if G-d didn't exist.

That's not a mechanism. It's a bald assertion. It doesn't answer the question or provide any clarification as to how some God supposedly created everything.

It is only "real" as G-d is maintaining the illusion.

Another bald assertion.

What is matter? What is energy? What are particles? What is antimatter?

Those things have definitions and descriptions, carefully studied by scientists.

Is the present moment physically distinct from the past and future, or is it merely an emergent property of consciousness?

What does this have to do with my question?

It is not that it can't be an infinite regress, it's that the evidence suggests that it is not the case. [expanding]

I don't think the evidence suggests that. But that ignores the point.

You claim the evidence suggests there can't be infinite regress, but also claim that God has always existed.

Philosophically, it is also an unsatisfactory solution to a definite conclusion.

I don't know why you think it's a "definite conclusion."

 

[muhammad_isa]

And none of it is verifiable or demonstrable in any way. So we have no good reason to insert God(s) into the equation.

If that's what you think, then fine. It's your opinion.
We will all see whether the evidence for the G-d of Abraham is "verifiable" or not if indeed G-d does exist.

It is not dependent on what you or I might claim. It would then depend on the intentions BEHIND what we claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If that's what you think, then fine. It's your opinion.

You disagree? So tell me, how and when has anyone demonstrated the existence of any god(s) at all?

I mean seriously, it can't even be done with philosophical word play, as this thread demonstrates.

We will all see whether the evidence for the G-d of Abraham is "verifiable" or not if indeed G-d does exist.

Great. When is that going to be?

It is not dependent on what you or I might claim. It would then depend on the intentions BEHIND what we claim.

I don't know what this is supposed to me.

Things that exist should be verifiable in some way, beyond just an individual "experience."

We have the same amount of evidence for Gods as we do for universe farting pixies.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know what this is supposed to me.

Well, it is part of the first cause argument, isn't it?
Everything we say and do has a cause..
..and that cause is our intention.

Only G-d knows what is deep down in our unconscious mind. Not even you or I necessarily know the underlying reason why we might claim what we claim.

Things that exist should be verifiable in some way, beyond just an individual "experience."

Why? We all have a conscience, and we have an intellect, and we are able to conclude what we think about religions.
G-d does not test anybody beyond their capabilities, and neither is anybody wronged for conclusions they might come to with sincerity.

So what's the problem? I can't see any. Some people believe, and some people don't.
..and G-d knows the underlying reasons why.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, it is part of the first cause argument, isn't it?
Everything we say and do has a cause..
..and that cause is our intention.

Only G-d knows what is deep down in our unconscious mind. Not even you or I necessarily know the underlying reason why we might claim what we claim.

When did you demonstrate that a God exists? You can't attribute characteristics to something you haven't defined or measured.
Only God knows what is in our unconscious mind? How do you know know that? How do you know there is a God, and which God is it?

Why? We all have a conscience, and we have an intellect, and we are able to conclude what we think about religions.

People believe all sorts of things. And some people actually don't have a conscience.

The problem comes down to when you ask people to demonstrate the veracity of their beliefs in God(s) - and then have nothing to show you but there belief. Well, I want to know why you believe.

G-d does not test anybody beyond their capabilities, and neither is anybody wronged for conclusions they might come to with sincerity.

You've got a lot of claims about a God you can't demonstrate the existence of. How do you claim to know this?

So what's the problem? I can't see any. Some people believe, and some people don't.

The problem is that there are people walking around telling us there are God(s) and what these God(s) want or need, without any verification at all that any God(s) exist in the first place. There are thousands of different religious beliefs and have been throughout the history of mankind. They can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. And until someone can demonstrate that there's is true, I see no good reason to believe in any of them.

But I am a person who wants to believe as many true things as possible. I also don't want to believe in untrue things. There are proven methods for discerning fact from faction, and that involves some sort of demonstration of the veracity of one's claims.

..and G-d knows the underlying reasons why.

More unverified claims.
How do you claim to know this?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, I want to know why you believe..

It will become evident as long as I keep posting.

There are thousands of different religious beliefs and have been throughout the history of mankind. They can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. And until someone can demonstrate that there's is true, I see no good reason to believe in any of them.

I have never looked at it that way. I've always believed in G-d, as in there must be something responsible for all I see.
I was raised a s a Christian, and then discovered Islam, and learnt more details about the G-d of Abraham, and every thing fell into place. I can't imagine now to NOT believe.

Naturally, my faith is tested, and when I am low, I get all sorts of doubts etc. .. but so far, they have quickly disappeared, as I realise that those thoughts are .. well ..
.. a "load of rubbish"

 

[Sheldon]

... unless it's about your god, right?

muhammad_isa said: ↑
You're getting carried away..
My objection is to people who claim everything "just happens to be".
That is an unjustified claim, imo.

Are you saying existence is somehow false or an illusion, unless we add one of the thousands of unevidenced deities humans have imagined?

I'm dubious...

 

[Sheldon]

none of it is verifiable or demonstrable in any way. So we have no good reason to insert God(s) into the equation.

If that's what you think, then fine. It's your opinion.

That's not an opinion, you have failed to demonstrate anything beyond bare subjective opinion for the one deity you have chosen to claim is real, from the thousands humans have conjured from their imagination.

 

[muhammad_isa]

bare subjective opinion .

Have a good day

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are you saying existence is somehow false or an illusion, unless we add one of the thousands of unevidenced deities humans have imagined?

How can existence be false, whatever you believe.
We are all experiencing life, aren't we?
Re. the 1000's of deities, perhaps you haven't got the intellect to differentiate between them .. but I doubt that, somehow.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you saying existence is somehow false or an illusion, unless we add one of the thousands of unevidenced deities humans have imagined?

How can existence be false, whatever you believe.
We are all experiencing life, aren't we?

Sorry that was a question, not a statement. I asked it in response to this claim you made:

My objection is to people who claim everything "just happens to be".
That is an unjustified claim, imo.

So?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So?

So what?
It's simple enough if you look at the context that I wrote it in.

You know very well that I don't believe that this life is just one big coincidence.
..and I don't need to be told that it is an argument from incredulity.
It is you who are looking for an argument.
I'm just stating my opinion, which is my prerogative.

i.e. I object to people suggesting that it is a rational position to hold, that existence has no particular cause or reason.

 

[Tiberius]

As a point of reference and perspective, Simulated universe or base reality.?

Such a question is currently unanswerable, so at present there's nothing to base any conclusion on.

 

[Sheldon]

My objection is to people who claim everything "just happens to be".
That is an unjustified claim, imo.

So?

So what?
It's simple enough if you look at the context that I wrote it in.

You know very well that I don't believe that this life is just one big coincidence.
..and I don't need to be told that it is an argument from incredulity.

Yes you do, as you seem not to understand that this makes your claim irrational.

It is you who are looking for an argument.

In a debate forum? Did you think you could just reel off claims and beliefs and they'd go unchallenged?

I'm just stating my opinion, which is my prerogative.

And I'm pointing out your opinion in this instance is unevidenced and based on a known logical fallacy, which means it is irrational. Which is my prerogative.

i.e. I object to people suggesting that it is a rational position to hold, that existence has no particular cause or reason.

Based on an argument from incredulity fallacy? If you're going to challenge the rationality of something, probably a good idea to avoid doing it with a known logical fallacy.

I don't believe there is an overarching purpose to the evolution of one species of evolved great apes, that evolved just 200k years ago, in a universe that's existed for billions of years, and obviously because there is no objective evidence for this claim. What is irrational about that?