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 wrote:It seems like you can't read.BishBoshMcCosh wrote: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?Hobbes' Choice wrote: 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.
Or have a problem with irony.
Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:16 pm
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
And that is why this whole thread is a croc of shit.BishBoshMcCosh wrote:I couldn't be bothered to address your syllogism because god didn't begin to exist, he has always existed,.Hobbes' Choice wrote:It seems like you can't read.BishBoshMcCosh wrote:
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?
Or have a problem with irony.
"Whatever exists has a cause"- you said that not me.
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
Our destiny is determined by the influence of constellations is basic astrology, but that doesn't give it any validity outside of astrology.BishBoshMcCosh wrote: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.
I wouldn't presume to speak for Hobbes Choice, I think the point is that this is a valid argument:
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.Hobbes Choice wrote: P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
Ah! Now I get it. He has a point BishBoshMcCosh.Hobbes' Choice wrote:"Whatever exists has a cause"- you said that not me.
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:16 pm
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
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.Hobbes' Choice wrote: And that is why this whole thread is a croc of shit.
"Whatever exists has a cause"- you said that not me.
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.
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:16 pm
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
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.uwot wrote: 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:
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.uwot wrote: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.Hobbes Choice wrote: P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
Of course.uwot wrote:Our destiny is determined by the influence of constellations is basic astrology, but that doesn't give it any validity outside of astrology.BishBoshMcCosh wrote: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.
I wouldn't presume to speak for Hobbes Choice, I think the point is that this is a valid argument: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.Hobbes Choice wrote: P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
You are just shooting the breeze: prove it!BishBoshMcCosh wrote: 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
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
"uncaused cause" is a self defeating phrase.BishBoshMcCosh wrote: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..Hobbes' Choice wrote: And that is why this whole thread is a croc of shit.
"Whatever exists has a cause"- you said that not me.
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.
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:16 pm
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
And you can repeatedly say this and things like this and it doesn't make something untrue....Hobbes' Choice wrote: You can make up any shit you like that does not mean it is meaningful or true.
However, your tone is still insulting and unpleasant, I'm not enjoying this conversation. I'm out.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
Let's hope that is the end of this ridiculous thread.BishBoshMcCosh wrote:And you can repeatedly say this and things like this and it doesn't make something untrue....Hobbes' Choice wrote: You can make up any shit you like that does not mean it is meaningful or true.
.
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:16 pm
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
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.uwot wrote: 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.
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
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
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.BishBoshMcCosh wrote: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.uwot wrote: 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.
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?
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
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.BishBoshMcCosh wrote:It's unverifiable that god (or anyone else) can't create a round square, because such a thing is logically impossible.
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.BishBoshMcCosh wrote: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.
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 wrote: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.
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:16 pm
Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God
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?uwot wrote: 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.
Yeah sure. I don't disagree.uwot wrote: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.