Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

[BishBoshMcCosh]

You have not presented the Cosmological Arguement here, as well you know. Because it is a further conclusion about "the cause", which itself invalidated by the argument.

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.

It seems like you don't really have a problem with there being a first uncaused cause so much as that people then refer to it as god and use it to support that he exists?

It seems like you can't read.
Or have a problem with irony.

I couldn't be bothered to address your syllogism because god didn't begin to exist, he has always existed, that's basic theology and so trivially wrong that it wasn't worth correcting. And honestly, I have limits to my patience too and you've exceeded them now. There's just no need to be so rude so much, it's just bad manners.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It seems like you don't really have a problem with there being a first uncaused cause so much as that people then refer to it as god and use it to support that he exists?

It seems like you can't read.
Or have a problem with irony.

I couldn't be bothered to address your syllogism because god didn't begin to exist, he has always existed,.

And that is why this whole thread is a croc of shit.

"Whatever exists has a cause"- you said that not me.

[uwot]

I couldn't be bothered to address your syllogism because god didn't begin to exist, he has always existed, that's basic theology and so trivially wrong that it wasn't worth correcting.

Our destiny is determined by the influence of constellations is basic astrology, but that doesn't give it any validity outside of astrology.
I wouldn't presume to speak for Hobbes Choice, I think the point is that this is a valid argument:

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.

Whereas your premise 'There must be a first uncaused cause' is unverifiable. Nor can you reach that conclusion from any sound argument that has as a premise 'There cannot be an infinite regress', because that too is unverifiable.

[uwot]

"Whatever exists has a cause"- you said that not me.

Ah! Now I get it. He has a point BishBoshMcCosh.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

And that is why this whole thread is a croc of shit.

"Whatever exists has a cause"- you said that not me.

Except the first un-caused cause (a cause that didn't have a cause, a causeless cause, a cause sans cause, the one that wasn't caused......), the crux of the whole conversation. And you wonder why I have to repeat myself so much. Also, you also don't seem to understand what logical Validity is which renders the whole thing pretty pointless, so we agree on that much.

If your next post is purely insulting and personal again and contains no actual content (i.e. what would progress the conversation...) then we're done.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

Our destiny is determined by the influence of constellations is basic astrology, but that doesn't give it any validity outside of astrology.
I wouldn't presume to speak for Hobbes Choice, I think the point is that this is a valid argument:

Sure, the syllogism he gave is Logically Valid but it's also irrelevant. And the second premise is dodgy anyway, how does he know that god began to exist? Christian theology maintains that he has always existed.

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.

Whereas your premise 'There must be a first uncaused cause' is unverifiable. Nor can you reach that conclusion from any sound argument that has as a premise 'There cannot be an infinite regress', because that too is unverifiable.

How do we verify something that can only be deduced theoretically? It's not possible to have a infinite regression of causation, a chain of events has to have a beginning.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I couldn't be bothered to address your syllogism because god didn't begin to exist, he has always existed, that's basic theology and so trivially wrong that it wasn't worth correcting.

Our destiny is determined by the influence of constellations is basic astrology, but that doesn't give it any validity outside of astrology.
I wouldn't presume to speak for Hobbes Choice, I think the point is that this is a valid argument:

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.

Whereas your premise 'There must be a first uncaused cause' is unverifiable. Nor can you reach that conclusion from any sound argument that has as a premise 'There cannot be an infinite regress', because that too is unverifiable.

Of course.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How do we verify something that can only be deduced theoretically? It's not possible to have a infinite regression of causation, a chain of events has to have a beginning.

You are just shooting the breeze: prove it!

[Hobbes' Choice]

And that is why this whole thread is a croc of shit.

"Whatever exists has a cause"- you said that not me.

Except the first un-caused cause (a cause that didn't have a cause, a causeless cause, a cause sans cause, the one that wasn't caused......), the crux of the whole conversation..

"uncaused cause" is a self defeating phrase.
You can make up any shit you like that does not mean it is meaningful or true.

You insist that "the first un-caused cause (a cause that didn't have a cause, a causeless cause, a cause sans cause, the one that wasn't caused......), the crux of the whole conversation."
And That is EXACTLY why the whole thing is circular, DUH.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

You can make up any shit you like that does not mean it is meaningful or true.

And you can repeatedly say this and things like this and it doesn't make something untrue....

However, your tone is still insulting and unpleasant, I'm not enjoying this conversation. I'm out.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You can make up any shit you like that does not mean it is meaningful or true.

And you can repeatedly say this and things like this and it doesn't make something untrue....
.

Let's hope that is the end of this ridiculous thread.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

Whereas your premise 'There must be a first uncaused cause' is unverifiable. Nor can you reach that conclusion from any sound argument that has as a premise 'There cannot be an infinite regress', because that too is unverifiable.

It's unverifiable that god (or anyone else) can't create a round square, because such a thing is logically impossible. Not everything can be verified, some things can only exist as theoretical deductions. An infinite regress of causation is also logically impossible because you would never have a cause in it.

If there was a beginning to the chain, then theists can call that god, and, God is the exception to the rule that everything must have a cause. Because.... god.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Whereas your premise 'There must be a first uncaused cause' is unverifiable. Nor can you reach that conclusion from any sound argument that has as a premise 'There cannot be an infinite regress', because that too is unverifiable.

It's unverifiable that god (or anyone else) can't create a round square, because such a thing is logically impossible. Not everything can be verified, some things can only exist as theoretical deductions. An infinite regress of causation is also logically impossible because you would never have a cause in it.

that is an unwarranted assertion based on a belief - a circular belief - there there has to be an uncaused cause and a 'start' of everything. Logic has nothing to do with it.

If there was a beginning to the chain, then theists can call that god, and, God is the exception to the rule that everything must have a cause. Because.... god.

"IF"


If I could fly then I'd not need a aeroplane.

1) a start is not established.
2) If there is was a start there is no reason to call it god.
3) What the hell is god anyway , and where did it come from?

[uwot]

It's unverifiable that god (or anyone else) can't create a round square, because such a thing is logically impossible.

Well, in Euclidean geometry at least, a shape that doesn't have four equal sides joined at corners of ninety degrees, a circle, for example, isn't a square.

Not everything can be verified, some things can only exist as theoretical deductions. An infinite regress of causation is also logically impossible because you would never have a cause in it.

Again, it is only logically impossible if the premise 'The initial condition of the universe is an effect' obtains. It is not true by definition in the way that a square is a square, because it satisfies the conditions imposed.

If there was a beginning to the chain, then theists can call that god, and, God is the exception to the rule that everything must have a cause. Because.... god.

What theists call god is entirely their business. If they also choose to believe that their god answers all the questions "Because... god." that too is their prerogative. What they can't do is insist that anyone else accepts such a view uncritically.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

Well, in Euclidean geometry at least, a shape that doesn't have four equal sides joined at corners of ninety degrees, a circle, for example, isn't a square.

Again, it is only logically impossible if the premise 'The initial condition of the universe is an effect' obtains. It is not true by definition in the way that a square is a square, because it satisfies the conditions imposed.

Ok, understood. The requirement for the initial condition of the universe to be an effect is met by the fact that something caused the universe, is it not? Or do you think that the universe can exist without cause? If not, do we not need to address the problem that an infinite regression in a causal chain is logically impossible because it wouldn't contain a cause?

What theists call god is entirely their business. If they also choose to believe that their god answers all the questions "Because... god." that too is their prerogative. What they can't do is insist that anyone else accepts such a view uncritically.

Yeah sure. I don't disagree.