What is a true first cause?

[Ginkgo]

science doesn't acknowledge the existence of God.

This is certainly historically incorrect, and there's no obvious reason why it would be rationally necessary today.

We have been though this before and it appears we have come full circle. Nothing has changed since the time of Francis Bacon. Both modern and post modern physicists believe in the existence of God. Today, I am friends with two cosmologists/physicists who are practicing Christians. So what? Can these two people show me with any sort of serious countenance where God appears in any of their postulates, theories, methodologies. Of course they can't and they wouldn't pretend to do so.

Forgive me, but your logic here looks totally like begging the question. Certainly there are a whole lot of scientists...including most of the fathers of the discipline...who did in fact believe in God. It's also clear, as even Dawkins admits, that science comes directly out of a worldview that expected natural laws, and the scientists who held that worldview knew to look for such laws; and they knew this because they believed in a Lawgiver God. That's not even controversial.

If I were you I would push push Dawkins on this. The author of the "God Delusion" is not going to help your case. I have read the book and he is in emphatic in his denial of the possible existence of God or an intelligent designer.

Maybe the only question you could raise is whether or not that view has to persist today. But you certainly couldn't argue that belief in God and science are fundamentally incompatible historically.

You are throwing up the same objects that have been canvased much earlier on. The belief in God, when it comes to scientists is probably the same as it has always been. The incompatibility come about when we examine the methodology.

I am not begging any question because I am not assuming an answer. I assume what the methodology is capable of examining.

If there's any sense in which one could argue that science is not able to deal with the God concept, it might be that it has no methodology for subduing Him and putting him on a microscope slide, or pinching him in Vernier callipers, or finding a way to heat Him up in a beaker or graduated cylinder. But hey, what would you expect of the Supreme Being? That he'd be tame to the science of tiny little contingent beings like us? It's hard to see why you'd think that made sense.

It makes sense because you have provided the distinction between science and non-science.

Not really, you are assuming the best argument for design is a scientific argument.

Incorrect. I'm saying that the best explanation IS the best science. And if, as you say, the best explanation is God...

No, I didn't say that. I said the best explanation for the existence of God comes from postulates outside of science. Don't ellipsis point my quotes. This is the worst form of quote mining,

Your rejoinder reminds me of a poster I saw once. It was one of those "demotivator" posters, if you know what I mean...with the glossy picture and the caption? The picture was of a galaxy, and the subtitle read,

Atheism: following the evidence wherever it leads
except when it leads to You-Know-Who.

Well I wouldn't know about that because I am not an atheist.


Strange how the argument eventually gets back to God as the intelligent designer (directly or indirectly). Your full circle argument gets back to this point. It might be true that God is the intelligent designer, but it ain't science.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You can pick out any event and come up with any number of explanations. That would cause it. And the cause itself may have underlying causes. I believe in plenty of evidence for the event (no matter how simple it looks) and I don't believe in first causes very firmly (the controversial Big Bang is a case in point due to the evidence for it, but it does leave open questions).

PhilX

First cause is a contradiction.

[Philosophy Explorer]

You can pick out any event and come up with any number of explanations. That would cause it. And the cause itself may have underlying causes. I believe in plenty of evidence for the event (no matter how simple it looks) and I don't believe in first causes very firmly (the controversial Big Bang is a case in point due to the evidence for it, but it does leave open questions).

PhilX

First cause is a contradiction.

If you mean that any first cause must have another one that caused it in answer to the question "What caused that first cause?", that would imply that the term kind of cancels itself out as I implied earlier.

The idea of first cause is of great importance in both physical science and religion. But it doesn't have to be either physical science nor religion as there are many other areas relevant to first cause. For example I could ask what brought about the theory of evolution in the first place? Was England solely responsible for the US coming into being? Etc.

PhilX

[Immanuel Can]

The author of the "God Delusion" is not going to help your case.

He does all the time. That's why I like to refer to him. That, and, of course, that he's quite high profile, so people have some idea of who I'm talking about.

When someone's arguments are so self-contradictory, and when his thinking is so circular, and when he makes so many self-defeating admissions, then yes, that is helpful to the opposite cause -- well, except for the unthinking masses, and I agree that is a bit of a concern. For Dawkins may be a weak thinker, but he's fairly talented as a propagandist and foamer. And people who don't understand logic can be impressed by passion, whether for a good cause or a foolish one.

Well I wouldn't know about that because I am not an atheist.

I wouldn't say you were. But your argument-pattern is very much the same. See?

it might be true that God is the intelligent designer, but it ain't science.

Your point seems to be that science, as you suppose, cannot provide evidence for a Designer. And why can't it? Because believing in a Designer isn't science. Why isn't it? Because it requires you to end up with a Designer.

Sounds circular to me. And if so, it just doesn't answer anything.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You can pick out any event and come up with any number of explanations. That would cause it. And the cause itself may have underlying causes. I believe in plenty of evidence for the event (no matter how simple it looks) and I don't believe in first causes very firmly (the controversial Big Bang is a case in point due to the evidence for it, but it does leave open questions).

PhilX

First cause is a contradiction.

If you mean that any first cause must have another one that caused it in answer to the question "What caused that first cause?", that would imply that the term kind of cancels itself out as I implied earlier.

The idea of first cause is of great importance in both physical science and religion. But it doesn't have to be either physical science nor religion as there are many other areas relevant to first cause. For example I could ask what brought about the theory of evolution in the first place? Was England solely responsible for the US coming into being? Etc.

PhilX

Cause and effect refer to a chain and succession of events. In an very importance sense there is no such thing as a single cause, not a single effect, but a continuum of events.
And your question demonstrates this very well.
Which theory of evolution? From Lamark, Darwin or Wallace. From each would you could consider all contributory factors from what Darwin had for breakfast the day he decided to publish; how he felt when he wrote down the "I think" diagram. The tireless efforts of fossil hunters through the centuries; the fact that religion was peddling lies for thousands of years. One ting is for sure; there is not one cause; in fact there is not one effect as such - the theory of evolution is itself a range of thoughts on a wide range of topics from domesticated animals, to the musing on what is now known as the "Wallace Line". The theory hence relied on the fact that the earth had produced, a set of data through plate tectonics that might not have made it so visible. All was necessary for that moment whereby the theory was formulated.
As for the US. Were England not what it was the USA would not have happened.

[Ginkgo]

Cause and effect refer to a chain and succession of events. In an very importance sense there is no such thing as a single cause, not a single effect, but a continuum of events.
And your question demonstrates this very well.
Which theory of evolution? From Lamark, Darwin or Wallace. From each would you could consider all contributory factors from what Darwin had for breakfast the day he decided to publish; how he felt when he wrote down the "I think" diagram. The tireless efforts of fossil hunters through the centuries; the fact that religion was peddling lies for thousands of years. One ting is for sure; there is not one cause; in fact there is not one effect as such - the theory of evolution is itself a range of thoughts on a wide range of topics from domesticated animals, to the musing on what is now known as the "Wallace Line". The theory hence relied on the fact that the earth had produced, a set of data through plate tectonics that might not have made it so visible. All was necessary for that moment whereby the theory was formulated.
As for the US. Were England not what it was the USA would not have happened.

Science doesn't investigate first causes because this would require science to extrapolate beyond its capacity. Your example shows why casual chains are not practical when it comes to providing an explanation within a physical system. If we want to provide an explanation outside the physical system viz., explanation of the system as a whole, then we can resort to casual chains and an eventual first cause.

Explaining causation within the system is what science does. Explaining causation of the system as a whole is what metaphysics does. This is the point I have been making throughout the thread. The former is science and the latter is metaphysics dressed up as science by those who want to promote pseudo-science. Science doesn't deal in universal causation.

[Ginkgo]

When someone's arguments are so self-contradictory, and when his thinking is so circular, and when he makes so many self-defeating admissions, then yes, that is helpful to the opposite cause -- well, except for the unthinking masses, and I agree that is a bit of a concern. For Dawkins may be a weak thinker, but he's fairly talented as a propagandist and foamer. And people who don't understand logic can be impressed by passion, whether for a good cause or a foolish one.

Now, where did you get the idea for this comment?

Well I wouldn't know about that because I am not an atheist.

I wouldn't say you were. But your argument-pattern is very much the same. See?

What am I suppose to be seeing?

it might be true that God is the intelligent designer, but it ain't science.

Your point seems to be that science, as you suppose, cannot provide evidence for a Designer. And why can't it? Because believing in a Designer isn't science. Why isn't it? Because it requires you to end up with a Designer.

Sounds circular to me. And if so, it just doesn't answer anything.

It is circular, but that's not my point.



P.S.

An apology. I accused you of quote mining by using ellipsis points. Upon re-reading I discovered that you were not actually quoting me. Once again, my apologies.

[Immanuel Can]

An apology.

Gladly accepted. I was confused by your claim, but have made the similar mistake myself at times. It's easy to overlook the little attribution header, particularly if one is deeply engaged at the time. No hard feelings.

It is circular, but that's not my point.

I'm guessing it isn't. But at the moment, that's the only way I can make heads or tails of it. So there must be a missing premise somewhere, or something tacit in your thinking that I'm not seeing you're intending me to understand.

Can you clarify? You say,

it might be true that God is the intelligent designer, but it ain't science.

But if God IS the Intelligent Designer, and science IS about the truth about the physical world, then what "ain't science" about specifying the true Cause of the physical universe?