| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2006 03:43:13 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Can Causes Exist Outside Existence? |
wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Atheism: The Case Against God
George H. Smith
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087975124X/
You have simply renamed God, "Existence." As stated explicitly, above:
"Existence-not "God"-is the First Cause.
Are not the premises of the first-cause argument a claim which say
something about something that exists outside of existence? This is a
contradiction if we claim that the universe or universes are all
oexistence.
Does the universe require a causal explanation?
In considering the causal argument as a whole, one contradiction
immediately stands out.
The first premise of this argument states that everything must have a
cause, and the conclusion asserts the existence of an uncaused
supernatural being. But if everything must have a cause, how did god
become exempt?
The causal argument is not merely invalid but self-contradictory: the
conclusion, which says that something (God) does not have a cause,
contradicts the premise, which says that everything does have a cause.
If that premise is true, the conclusion cannot be true; and if the
conclusion is true, the premise cannot be. Many people do not at once
see this because they use the argument to get to God, and then, having
arrived where they want to go, they forget all about the argument ...
if the conclusion contradicts its own premise, we have the most damning
indictment of an argument that we could possibly have: that it is
self-contradictory.
By predicating a First Cause ...the theist removes the mystery a stage
further back. This First Cause they assume to be a cause that was not
caused and this First Cause is God. Such a belief is a logical
absurdity, and is an example of the ancient custom of creating a
mystery to explain a mystery. If everything must have a cause, then the
First Cause must be caused and therefore: Who made God? To say-that
this First Cause always existed is to deny the basic assumption of this
"Theory." Moreover, if it is reasonable to assume a First Cause as
having always existed, why is it unreasonable to assume that the
materials of the universe always existed? To explain the unknown by the
known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a
form of theological lunacy.
The contradiction in the causal argument stems from its basic flaw: its
demand for a causal explanation of the universe, the totality of
existence.
First Cause == Necessary Existent, and that, we call "God." It doesn't
matter too much what word you use for such a thing. But your main
objection appears to be to the use of a particular word to name that
concept, not to the concept itself.
But wouldn't that be a little "g" god instead of the Christian God? Or
do you mean Hindu gods also when you use the Christianized "God" with
the capital G?
In an English Composition class wouldn't we get worse scores if we used
the term "Christian God" in a way that whenever the term "existence"
was used it could be replaced by and mean the same identical thing as
existence?
Translation:
I think therefore I exist
I think therefore I "Christian God"
Let's call the Necessary Existent - whatever it may be - "E." Let's
call the totality of all existents - whatever that totality may include
- "U."
Now it is obvious that U -> E - the Universe Exists, therefore, a
Necessary Existent exists. You don't appear to have any objection
whatsoever to this, since as you have said, "Existence . . . is the
First Cause."
If you assert E = U, then you assert pantheism.
If you assert E <= U, then you assert some necessary existent other
than the whole, that makes it possible that the whole should exist.
In either case, if you assert "E, not God," then you are only objecting
to a nominal, not an existential, assertion.
Then your trying to say that the God is existence? Is this the accepted
doctrine of most denominations of Christianity or just in far out
debates?
.
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Causes Exist Outside Existence? |
04 Sep 2006 09:56:47 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1157402593.718005.37150
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
josephfg@hotmail.com wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Atheism: The Case Against God
George H. Smith
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087975124X/
You have simply renamed God, "Existence." As stated explicitly, above:
"Existence-not "God"-is the First Cause.
Are not the premises of the first-cause argument a claim which say
something about something that exists outside of existence? This is a
contradiction if we claim that the universe or universes are all
oexistence.
Correct. It's a special pleading fallacy.
Does the universe require a causal explanation?
Good point. Causes and effects happen within the universe. There is no
evidence or even reason to think that causes and events are meaningful to
the background of reality. A further problem is that empirical evidence
shows that events do occur which are uncaused such as radioactive decay.
In considering the causal argument as a whole, one contradiction
immediately stands out.
The first premise of this argument states that everything must have a
cause, and the conclusion asserts the existence of an uncaused
supernatural being. But if everything must have a cause, how did god
become exempt?
No problem - just throw in a dose of special pleading ;-).
Klazmon.
<Further good arguments snipped>
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
