Topic: reasonable to assume that a god would not need a "first cause" himself...

[JD Holwick]

Before space and time I am not sure how something would have a beginning and an ending.

of course not. i'm not sure how your comment ties in with what i am arguing. --- jdh

[EhJayArr]

...but if you grant that it exists, then you must accept that it's been covered up so well since most people are unaware of it.

in granting the existence of the generic conspiracy i then proceeded to show why i felt it could not have been a conspiracy in the first place.  that one was supposed to backfire on itself.  as for my granting of the existence of an uncreated god however, do you not believe it reasonable to propose that this entity would not be subject to the very laws it has created (i.e. - the concepts of beginning and ending)?  judging from what you have written it seems we both probably find the existence of god in the first place to be an absurd proposition, but i honestly do not see how my thought experiment is really guilty of any faulty special pleading. --- jdh

You're granting the existence of god (for the purposes of the argument) but NOT granting the existence of the worldwide conspiracy, claiming that it's implausible.

I find the idea of a god highly implausible. If you would like me to grant its existence for the sake of argument, then you should be willing to grant the existence of a worldwide conspiracy (that is so vast that it controls all evidence of its existence) for the sake of argument.

Like I said, you're treating one claim/special-pleading-to-support-the-claim different than the other.

[seaotter]

Can I just say that the idea of an omni what ever entity is just plan old counter to everything we observe. Things don't start out complex. Things start simple and we use energy to make them more and more complex. God screams for an even better explanation than the universe.

(click to show/hide)

Waits for the second law folks.

[JD Holwick]

You're granting the existence of god (for the purposes of the argument) but NOT granting the existence of the worldwide conspiracy, claiming that it's implausible.

I find the idea of a god highly implausible. If you would like me to grant its existence for the sake of argument, then you should be willing to grant the existence of a worldwide conspiracy...

i'm not sure you see what i am trying to say about BOTH of these examples though.  i agree both are highly improbable in the first place and so i would not grant the existence of either unless it was for the sake of example.  my point however, is not really in the granting of these two but in what you are citing as examples of special pleading: to say that the information in a global conspiracy is controlled is highly suspect as this would NOT be a stable situation so it IS special pleading; to say that a god would be above his creation's laws makes sense since he is the one creating the laws so this IS NOT special pleading.  in granting both of the initial conditions for these situations only one of them falls apart (the global conspiracy) because of the SPECIFIC special pleading example posed.  HOWEVER, both of them fall apart when other arguments are argued in my opinion but ONLY using the specific potential special pleading examples cited, only one falls apart.  do you see where i coming from on these yet?  i am hoping i have made my previous points a little clearer here and i apologize for the capitalized words but i want to make sure certain parts are payed attention to. --- jdh

[JD Holwick]

Can I just say that the idea of an omni what ever entity is just plan old counter to everything we observe. Things don't start out complex. Things start simple and we use energy to make them more and more complex. God screams for an even better explanation than the universe. Waits for the second law folks.

yes, but wouldn't this be limiting a god to laws within a reality that it may not be subject to? --- jdh

[Ajzzz]

Things that are complex, an intelligence like our own (because it's imaginary and based on our own, with all the characteristics of being man-made), do not simply exist without a cause, they evolve. Intelligences like our own are temporal, they require time, if a God thought and intended things, they didn't create time itself. It's just supernatural nonsense, meaningless phrases, contrary to logic, positing things that would be the same as referring to a 3-sided square.

[JD Holwick]

Things that are complex, an intelligence like our own (because it's imaginary and based on our own, with all the characteristics of being man-made), do not simply exist without a cause, they evolve. Intelligences like our own are temporal, they require time, if a God thought and intended things, they didn't create time itself. It's just supernatural nonsense, meaningless phrases, contrary to logic, positing things that would be the same as referring to a 3-sided square.

i agree that it is contrary to logic... but if this supernatural being created everything (including logic) then does it really make sense to impose any bounds on this entity.  i agree that going to this length of belief in the first place is unnecessary and silly on the face of it BUT i think i do see where a christian is coming from when one of them posits to me that their god is outside of any constraints of reason or anything else. --- jdh

[seaotter]

But it's not our argument. It's theirs. They say the universe needs a cause. Your points are good arguments against the assertion of the need for a first cause.

[Ajzzz]

Things that are complex, an intelligence like our own (because it's imaginary and based on our own, with all the characteristics of being man-made), do not simply exist without a cause, they evolve. Intelligences like our own are temporal, they require time, if a God thought and intended things, they didn't create time itself. It's just supernatural nonsense, meaningless phrases, contrary to logic, positing things that would be the same as referring to a 3-sided square.

i agree that it is contrary to logic... but if this supernatural being created everything (including logic) then does it really make sense to impose any bounds on this entity.  i agree that going to this length of belief in the first place is unnecessary and silly on the face of it BUT i think i do see where a christian is coming from when one of them posits to me that their god is outside of any constraints of reason or anything else. --- jdh

Something creating logic doesn't make sense to me, even more so than something creating time. It doesn't make sense to impose bounds because the entity doesn't make sense itself. What does it actually mean to be outside of any constraints of reason? How are they contemplating or communicating these things? Obviously they aren't, therefore all they're doing is uttering nonsense, meaningless phrases.

[seaotter]

Don't quantum effects as well as relativistic effects raspberry logic?

[JD Holwick]

Something creating logic doesn't make sense to me, even more so than something creating time. It doesn't make sense to impose bounds because the entity doesn't make sense itself. What does it actually mean to be outside of any constraints of reason? How are they contemplating or communicating these things? Obviously they aren't, therefore all they're doing is uttering nonsense, meaningless phrases.

i agree it doesn't make sense, but if sense itself was created by this being, then maybe judging it from a logical standpoint is meaningless.  i realize this kind of "reasoning" can't be argued against but if one chooses to believe in an all-powerful entity then it makes sense (in its own bizzare way) i think.  logic could be discarded when stating any actions of this god being.  obviously the real trouble is that there is really no good reason to assume that this thing exists in the first place and seeing as how it would be adding a very large piece to our understanding of everything there would have to be good justification to add this in the first place: there isn't of course and the origins of the universe as we are beginning to understand them do not need a god in order to be understood.  i do, nevertheless, see how my previous points about a god would make a certain sense to someone who has already accepted the existence of such a being. --- jdh

[JD Holwick]

But it's not our argument. It's theirs. They say the universe needs a cause. Your points are good arguments against the assertion of the need for a first cause.

of course you are right here, but they refuse to accept what we are beginning to understand: the "big bang" could have been a truly arbitrary event in no need of a cause.  they deny this so that they can hold onto their need to believe in this god character.  i don't think you would disagree though that they do not believe god itself needed a cause, right? --- jdh

[seaotter]

But logically he does need a cause and so does the universe. If it happens that there is a god or an uncaused universe logic has nothing to do with either.

[Ajzzz]

Something creating logic doesn't make sense to me, even more so than something creating time. It doesn't make sense to impose bounds because the entity doesn't make sense itself. What does it actually mean to be outside of any constraints of reason? How are they contemplating or communicating these things? Obviously they aren't, therefore all they're doing is uttering nonsense, meaningless phrases.

i agree it doesn't make sense, but if sense itself was created by this being, then maybe judging it from a logical standpoint is meaningless.  i realize this kind of "reasoning" can't be argued against but if one chooses to believe in an all-powerful entity then it makes sense (in its own bizzare way) i think.  logic could be discarded when stating any actions of this god being.  obviously the real trouble is that there is really no good reason to assume that this thing exists in the first place and seeing as how it would be adding a very large piece to our understanding of everything there would have to be good justification to add this in the first place: there isn't of course and the origins of the universe as we are beginning to understand them do not need a god in order to be understood.  i do, nevertheless, see how my previous points about a god would make a certain sense to someone who has already accepted the existence of such a being. --- jdh

It certainly doesn't make sense, even in a bizarre way. What kind of sense can you make of nonsense? What kind of sense can you make of meaningless statements like "sense itself was created"? You haven't communicated anything to me with that phrase. Without sense, without logic, nothing you say is worth anything, it's gibberish, might as well be random words. How can you even apply the word "created" to time, logic, or sense? You don't even know what that means.

For people who believe in gods they don't require sense, they don't require understanding, any description is just meaningless rhetoric to disguise that it's nonsense, gods are all about action. They're not really contemplating what is, they're saying what can and can't be done without explanation. All supernatural concepts are like this.

[JD Holwick]

But logically he does need a cause and so does the universe. If it happens that there is a god or an uncaused universe logic has nothing to do with either.

but if this entity created logic itself, then it would not have to be logically explained.  i agree with you though, that the universe itself, prior to the "big bang" could not probably be considered in any sort of logical sense.  using the term "prior" when referring to the "big bang" as i just have, is entirely meaningless too probably. --- jdh