| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"bowl of petunias" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 07:15:24 PM |
| Object: |
Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
(Cough)
Compelling as the quote from Russel is, a valid argument is not the
same thing as "the truth". Nor can we rest on the idea that since
something cannot be proved it is nesessarily false. the burden of
proof does rest with the side trying to prove something. However all
the rest of us can do is accept or reject the the attempts. If these
attempts are unsucessful the most that can be claimed is the original
assertion is unsuported by this argument. Imagining anymore is -well-
wishful thinking.
.
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
01 Jun 2004 08:20:59 AM |
|
|
Courageous wrote:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause? You
cannot prove it simply by asserting it. You should know that by now.
The fact is that you are mistaken. The very idea of God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator, depends upon the argument that there
must be a first cause, and, as Russell points out, that argument is one
that cannot have any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
first cause, due to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the
very idea of it, which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for first
cause that does not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very
idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
01 Jun 2004 08:32:35 AM |
|
|
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists. Or Russel, as the answer to your question is
in the very self-same quote that you are so fond of repeating,
ad nauseum.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
first cause, due to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the
very idea of it, which Russell points out:
You lie.
C//
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
01 Jun 2004 01:03:22 PM |
|
|
Courageous wrote:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me.
Then it should be a piece of cake for you to cite at least one of those
valid arguments here. Be specific.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
01 Jun 2004 06:40:15 PM |
|
|
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me.
Then it should be a piece of cake for you to cite at least one of those
valid arguments here. Be specific.
It would be more than trivial to refer you to any stellar cosmologist
on the subject of the big bang. However, if you are unable to grasp
information already tought to you, in grade school, why would I bother?
C//
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
02 Jun 2004 12:34:31 AM |
|
|
Courageous wrote:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me.
Then it should be a piece of cake for you to cite at least one of those
valid arguments here. Be specific.
It would be more than trivial to refer you to any stellar cosmologist
on the subject of the big bang. However, if you are unable to grasp
information already tought to you, in grade school, why would I bother?
C//
You consider that a valid argument that there could be a first cause?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
02 Jun 2004 02:55:52 AM |
|
|
In article <HFdvc.30536$IB.26412@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Courageous wrote:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me.
Then it should be a piece of cake for you to cite at least one of those
valid arguments here. Be specific.
It would be more than trivial to refer you to any stellar cosmologist
on the subject of the big bang. However, if you are unable to grasp
information already tought to you, in grade school, why would I bother?
C//
You consider that a valid argument that there could be a first cause?
Does Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, have a valid argument that there
cannot be one? NO!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
01 Jun 2004 06:16:22 PM |
|
|
In article <Kx3vc.31808$eY2.17440@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Courageous wrote:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me.
Then it should be a piece of cake for you to cite at least one of those
valid arguments here. Be specific.
Since Courageous only posits a possibility which Dixit, Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, claims is impossible, the burden of proof that there
is any evidence against such existence lies squarely on Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple.
In the absence of evidence either way between on an infinite regression
of causes versus a first cause, neither can be considered impossible.
Anyone who declares in favor of one to the exclusion of the other must
prove his case. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has not done this.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
01 Jun 2004 05:43:24 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:32:35 GMT, Courageous
<dontwant@spam.com> let us all know that:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists. Or Russel, as the answer to your question is
in the very self-same quote that you are so fond of repeating,
ad nauseum.
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uthur" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
02 Jun 2004 05:24:38 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:5i1qb0l19qmre6ao94p0c4rki5r6t0387b@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:32:35 GMT, Courageous
<dontwant@spam.com> let us all know that:
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
You Kant just go around saying that type of thing!
Uthur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
03 Jun 2004 12:12:38 PM |
|
|
Uthur wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:5i1qb0l19qmre6ao94p0c4rki5r6t0387b@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:32:35 GMT, Courageous
<dontwant@spam.com> let us all know that:
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
You Kant just go around saying that type of thing!
Y Knot?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
01 Jun 2004 06:43:12 PM |
|
|
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists.
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
Sure; however whatever immediately followed was caused by the
big bang, to the degree that one can countenance that determinism
existed in any immediate thereafter.
CC/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
02 Jun 2004 01:51:04 AM |
|
|
Courageous wrote:
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists.
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
Sure; however whatever immediately followed was caused by the
big bang ...
What big bang? Looking at the latest data from Hubbell,
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/ , it looks like the rate of expansion
is actually increasing, so that rules out any infinite sequence of
crunches and bangs, right?
There is no denying the logic of what Russell points out, that to be
logically consistent and avoid special pleading for one thing, since
nobody knows, if anything must have a cause then whatever you imagine
is the first cause must have a cause. If there can be anything without a
cause (eternal) it might as well be the whole enchilada. That rules out
a first cause.
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
02 Jun 2004 03:21:36 AM |
|
|
In article <sNevc.34665$eY2.2627@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Courageous wrote:
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists.
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
Sure; however whatever immediately followed was caused by the
big bang ...
What big bang? Looking at the latest data from Hubbell,
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/ , it looks like the rate of expansion
is actually increasing, so that rules out any infinite sequence of
crunches and bangs, right?
It does not rule out a big bang startup, though it tends to rule out the
big crunch finale. In fact, it makes a first cause more likely, not less.
There is no denying the logic of what Russell points out,
While Russell's logic is reasonable, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
misinterpretation of it is not. This is what Russell actually said:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
03 Jun 2004 12:36:02 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <sNevc.34665$eY2.2627@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
There is no denying the logic of what Russell points out,
While Russell's logic is reasonable, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
misinterpretation of it is not. This is what Russell actually said:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
That fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing) inherent in the
very idea of first cause rules out any possibility of a first cause.
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with some argument for first
cause that does not run into
this fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing) inherent in the
very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of Septic |
03 Jun 2004 05:51:26 PM |
|
|
In article <6kJvc.13013$sI.7718@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <sNevc.34665$eY2.2627@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
There is no denying the logic of what Russell points out,
While Russell's logic is reasonable, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
misinterpretation of it is not. This is what Russell actually said:
"The argument that there MUST be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
That fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing) inherent in the
very idea of first cause rules out any possibility of a first cause.
The fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing) inherent in the
very idea of an infintie regression of causes rules out any possibility
of an infinite regression of causes.
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
an infinte regression of causes anyway. All they have to do is come up
with some argument for such an ingfinite regression of causes that does
not run into this fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing)
inherent in the very idea of it.
<cue the laughing hyenas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of Septic |
04 Jun 2004 01:32:25 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <6kJvc.13013$sI.7718@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <sNevc.34665$eY2.2627@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
There is no denying the logic of what Russell points out,
While Russell's logic is reasonable, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
misinterpretation of it is not. This is what Russell actually said:
"The argument that there MUST be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
That fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing) inherent in the
very idea of first cause rules out any possibility of a first cause.
The fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing) inherent in the
very idea of an infintie regression of causes rules out any possibility
of an infinite regression of causes.
Straw man. I am not arguing for "an infinite regression of causes," you
theists are arguing that there must be a first cause. But let me ask you
this: If anything can have always existed without a cause, why can't it
just as well be the universe?
There is no special pleading in pointing out the logical inconsistency
in the argument for God, the hypothetical first cause.
To be logically consistent, and avoid a special pleading for God, your
hypothetical first cause, if anything must have a cause, then God must
have a cause, if anything can have always existed, without a cause, it
may as well be the universe, as Russell points out.
Aren't you at all interested in logical consistency, and avoiding
special pleading for God, the hypothetical first cause?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of Septic |
04 Jun 2004 02:47:13 AM |
|
|
In article <ZHUvc.47790$Ly.2775@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
The fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing) inherent in the
very idea of an infintie regression of causes rules out any possibility
of an infinite regression of causes.
Straw man.
it is made of better straw that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, false
argument along similar llines.
I am not arguing for "an infinite regression of causes,"
If you reject the possibility of a first cause, then you are
automatically assuming an unbounded series of causes going into the
past, or infinite regression of such causes.
you
theists are arguing that there must be a first cause.
I am not a theist any more that Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, is a theist. Even less in one sense: I do not insist that I know
things that I cannot prove in the way that both Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, and many theists do.
I do not argue that there MUST be a forst cause. I speculate that there
MIGHT be one, since there is no evidence by which to eliminate either a
first cause or an unbounded chain of prior causes.
But let me ask you
this: If anything can have always existed without a cause, why can't it
just as well be the universe?
It might to might not.
There is no special pleading in pointing out the logical inconsistency
in the argument for God, the hypothetical first cause.
There is special pleading in the sense of asserting a logical
inconsistency where none exists. Though there are less polite terms for
it.
To be logically consistent, and avoid a special pleading for God, your
hypothetical first cause, if anything must have a cause, then God must
have a cause, if anything can have always existed, without a cause, it
may as well be the universe, as Russell points out.
But, note that Russell carefully does NOT say that it MUST be the
universe.
Aren't you at all interested in logical consistency, and avoiding
special pleading for God, the hypothetical first cause?
As I have been logically consistent whereas Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, has not been, and I have done no special pleading wheras Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, does it continually, I have expressed my
interest in and dedication to logic and truth to a much greater extent
than Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has done.
I do not speak for any god's existence, but I will not speak against
that possibility until there is better evidence against it than Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple's simple fallacies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of Septic |
04 Jun 2004 05:24:50 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
I will not speak against
that possibility ...
You still believe there is a possibility that God, the hypothetical
first cause, might exist anyway, in spite of the fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out? Why?
The very idea of God, the hypothetical first cause/creator depends upon
the argument that there must be a first cause, and, as Russell points
out, that argument is one that cannot have any validity.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
God, the theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to
the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God,
which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of Septic |
05 Jun 2004 12:20:27 AM |
|
|
In article <SE6wc.9260$%F2.2221@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
I will not speak against
that possibility ...
You still believe there is a possibility that God, the hypothetical
first cause, might exist anyway, in spite of the fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out? Why?
As the arguments of Russell and Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple (however much Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, may deny that they
are arguments) can at worst refute the argument that there MUST be a
god, the speculation that there MIGHT be one is one that every agnostic
quite properly will make. It is one that Huxley makes, so I am in good
company.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
02 Jun 2004 10:16:13 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<5i1qb0l19qmre6ao94p0c4rki5r6t0387b@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:32:35 GMT, Courageous
<dontwant@spam.com> let us all know that:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists. Or Russel, as the answer to your question is
in the very self-same quote that you are so fond of repeating,
ad nauseum.
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
Actually, we've grown accustomed to doubting that causality fully
applies within the universe itself too. This is the twenty-first
century, you know!
As for me, I'm heading down to the Heisenberg Pub where I may drink a
Guinness, and where I may even play a game of dice with God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
03 Jun 2004 11:18:30 AM |
|
|
ShrikeBack wrote:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<5i1qb0l19qmre6ao94p0c4rki5r6t0387b@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:32:35 GMT, Courageous
<dontwant@spam.com> let us all know that:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists. Or Russel, as the answer to your question is
in the very self-same quote that you are so fond of repeating,
ad nauseum.
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
Actually, we've grown accustomed to doubting that causality fully
applies within the universe itself too. This is the twenty-first
century, you know!
As for me, I'm heading down to the Heisenberg Pub where I may drink a
Guinness, and where I may even play a game of dice with God.
Don't forget to shrink yourself down to sub-atomic size before you head out.
By the way, there is no God, the hypothetical first cause, and cannot
possibly be one, due to the fatal problem (special pleading for that
one thing) inherent in the very idea of it which Russell points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
04 Jun 2004 12:09:19 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<qbIvc.12466$sI.10736@attbi_s52>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<5i1qb0l19qmre6ao94p0c4rki5r6t0387b@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:32:35 GMT, Courageous
<dontwant@spam.com> let us all know that:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists. Or Russel, as the answer to your question is
in the very self-same quote that you are so fond of repeating,
ad nauseum.
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
Actually, we've grown accustomed to doubting that causality fully
applies within the universe itself too. This is the twenty-first
century, you know!
As for me, I'm heading down to the Heisenberg Pub where I may drink a
Guinness, and where I may even play a game of dice with God.
Don't forget to shrink yourself down to sub-atomic size before you head out.
I won't need to. I have a trunk full of subatomic particles with me,
so I expect to be able to gamble a long time, even if He is really lucky
tonight.
He's got a Schoedinger's Box down there, and we'll probably go through
a lot of cats. But it's okay. It's in the interest of science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
04 Jun 2004 05:02:08 PM |
|
|
In article <59b8bc96.0406032109.203d0ff6@posting.google.com>,
(ShrikeBack) wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<qbIvc.12466$sI.10736@attbi_s52>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:<5i1qb0l19qmre6ao94p0c4rki5r6t0387b@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:32:35 GMT, Courageous
<dontwant@spam.com> let us all know that:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists. Or Russel, as the answer to your question is
in the very self-same quote that you are so fond of repeating,
ad nauseum.
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
Actually, we've grown accustomed to doubting that causality fully
applies within the universe itself too. This is the twenty-first
century, you know!
As for me, I'm heading down to the Heisenberg Pub where I may drink a
Guinness, and where I may even play a game of dice with God.
Don't forget to shrink yourself down to sub-atomic size before you head
out.
I won't need to. I have a trunk full of subatomic particles with me,
so I expect to be able to gamble a long time, even if He is really lucky
tonight.
He's got a Schoedinger's Box down there, and we'll probably go through
a lot of cats. But it's okay. It's in the interest of science.
*
Watch out for Occam's Razor and Maxwell's demon. Also Maxwell's
silver hammer.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
03 Jun 2004 12:51:14 PM |
|
|
In article <qbIvc.12466$sI.10736@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
ShrikeBack wrote:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:<5i1qb0l19qmre6ao94p0c4rki5r6t0387b@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:32:35 GMT, Courageous
<dontwant@spam.com> let us all know that:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists. Or Russel, as the answer to your question is
in the very self-same quote that you are so fond of repeating,
ad nauseum.
However, we know, ontologically and cosmologically, that
causality does not apply to the universe itself, but is a feature of
the spatiotemporal continuum. In fact, the universe itself can be
described just fine without any reference to time at all, which means
that it is atemporal, hence acausal.
Actually, we've grown accustomed to doubting that causality fully
applies within the universe itself too. This is the twenty-first
century, you know!
As for me, I'm heading down to the Heisenberg Pub where I may drink a
Guinness, and where I may even play a game of dice with God.
Don't forget to shrink yourself down to sub-atomic size before you head out.
By the way, there is no God, the hypothetical first cause, and cannot
possibly be one, due to the fatal problem (special pleading for that
one thing) inherent in the very idea of it which Russell points out:
This tired old lie again? When will Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
advance into the 19th century and realize that repeating a lie does not
make it any less of a lie.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says that Russell saysm in effect
"The argument that there MIGHT be a first cause is one that cannot
have any validity".
What Russsell actually says is
"The argument that there MUST be a first cause is one that cannot
have any validity.
The difference is critical to Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's case,
and proves his case false.
Here is Russell's quote, emphasis added:
"The argument that there MUST be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who can read, should you believe
Russell or Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, about what Russell said?
<cue the hyenas laughing at Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
01 Jun 2004 11:40:05 AM |
|
|
In article <951pb093faoeq11q2fd358tvjfq396n3ra@4ax.com>,
Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote:
Of course there could be a "first cause".
Then where is your valid argument that there could be a first cause?
A legion of scientists have gone before me. Take it up with
the cosmologists. Or Russel, as the answer to your question is
in the very self-same quote that you are so fond of repeating,
ad nauseum.
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
first cause, due to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the
very idea of it, which Russell points out:
You lie.
*
Now there's a truly intellectual response.
"You lie."
Is this why you call yourself 'Courageous'?
I am thinking about calling myself 'Naturally curly hair.'
earle
Post-Christian humanist
AA#57
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
01 Jun 2004 06:45:19 PM |
|
|
There is no possibility that there might actually be such a thing as
first cause, due to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the
very idea of it, which Russell points out:
You lie.
Now there's a truly intellectual response.
It wouldn't matter; he breezes past any intellectual response, and
keeps on lying. If you don't believe me, do a google search. Mr "Dixit,"
who has gone by any number of other aliases, continuously lies about
what Mr. Russel has actually said.
Is this why you call yourself 'Courageous'?
I would have thought you would have given up making fun of people's
names somewhere about the time you left the playground. Move along,
now.
C//
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
02 Jun 2004 12:55:16 AM |
|
|
Courageous wrote:
... lies about
what Mr. Russel has actually said.
That is not true, I am quoting Russell:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem (logically inconsistent special pleading for that one
thing) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
Where is your valid argument for God, the hypothetical first cause?
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
02 Jun 2004 03:06:42 AM |
|
|
In article <8Zdvc.34361$eY2.28180@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Courageous wrote:
... lies about
what Mr. Russel has actually said.
That is not true, I am quoting Russell:
"The argument that there MUST be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
But in spite of having the words in front of you (and everyone else),
you lie about what they mean.
Those words neither state directly nor imply that there CANNOT be a
first cause, only that there NEED NOT be one.
Perhaps when Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, grows up a bit more, he
will learn to distinguish between the two.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
02 Jun 2004 08:41:10 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 05:55:16 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
Courageous wrote:
... lies about
what Mr. Russel has actually said.
That is not true, I am quoting Russell:
That's a lie, too. You "quote" Russell, and then say he
says things in his quote that he didn't say.
C//
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The fatal problem with the very idea of God |
03 Jun 2004 11:46:45 AM |
|
|
Courageous wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 05:55:16 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
Courageous wrote:
... lies about
what Mr. Russel has actually said.
That is not true, I am quoting Russell:
That's a lie, too. You "quote" Russell, and then say he
says things in his quote that he didn't say.
That is not true. Russell says what Russell says. It is very clear. Here
is the quote:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
It's a very simple problem for anybody like you who still believes there
might be a first cause anyway, in spite of this fatal problem Russell
points out. All you have to do is come up with an argument there might
be a first cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading for one thing) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell
points out.
So where is your valid argument for any imaginable first cause? I still
have $1,000,000 that says it cannot be done.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
