Jump to content


Photo

Proof Of An Intelligent Uncaused Cause - God


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
278 replies to this topic

#81 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:16 PM

This query already was dealt with... Again I ask you to at least read and comprehend my posts, ignoring them or intentional or not makes you look silly.


Your quote:

Concepts are for philosophy whereas if you want to claim that there is an infinite amount of physical events then you are dealing with an "actual number" as its now meant to be something tangible within reality.

Causality is required due to the law of cause and effect. This law ensures that order is kept in that things don't spontaneously explode or pop in and out of existence etc. Therefore only things that have a sufficient cause can occur, for example a chemical reaction can only occur due to the cause of its activation energy and the energy levels of the reactants (as well as their relative affinity), we wouldn't expect reactions to occur without these requirements this expectation is due to the law of cause and effect.

The first cause needs to be supernatural in order to escape requiring a cause. Supernatual in light of being
- timeless / eternal (always existing = no need to be created)
- spaceless (something of the universe cannot create the universe, therefore there is the requirement to exist outside of this plane of existance)
- omnipotent (something that creates the entire universe would need to be all-powerful)

The role of intelligence was already demonstrated to you before, which lies in the power of choice.

By immaterial, I meant supernatural. I was using the terminology that the logical exercise was using.

If being supernatural allows the first cause to avoid the law of cause and effect, why must the first cause also be intelligent? Why can't it be supernatural but mindless?

Throwing in the requirement of omnipotence doesn't really follow the original logical argument. Why must the first cause be omnipotent?

#82 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 06:21 PM

Your quote:

By immaterial, I meant supernatural. I was using the terminology that the logical exercise was using.

If being supernatural allows the first cause to avoid the law of cause and effect, why must the first cause also be intelligent? Why can't it be supernatural but mindless?

Throwing in the requirement of omnipotence doesn't really follow the original logical argument. Why must the first cause be omnipotent?


As I said its already been dealt with...


You were attempting to link intelligence to not needing a cause, whereas I demonstrated that intelligence has little to do with not needing a cause, whereby being supernatural is what makes God not need a cause.

Again I ask you to read before posting... Others have already answered this question, continuing to ask the question doesn't delete their responses.

"The role of intelligence was already demonstrated to you before, which lies in the power of choice."


Being omnipotent is a part of being supernatural, nothing in nature can be omnipotent, yet that is one characterisitc required of a first cause.
  • goldliger likes this

#83 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:30 AM

As I said its already been dealt with...


You were attempting to link intelligence to not needing a cause, whereas I demonstrated that intelligence has little to do with not needing a cause, whereby being supernatural is what makes God not need a cause.

Again I ask you to read before posting... Others have already answered this question, continuing to ask the question doesn't delete their responses.

"The role of intelligence was already demonstrated to you before, which lies in the power of choice."


Being omnipotent is a part of being supernatural, nothing in nature can be omnipotent, yet that is one characterisitc required of a first cause.

I did read it. That's why I asked the question....If being supernatural is what makes God not need a cause then why does a mindless supernatural thing need a cause?

You say that the role of intelligence lies in the power of choice but do not demonstrate why choice is required for a cause.
If the supernatural removes the need for a cause, then a mindless supernatural thing does not need a cause to have events occurring in it or by it (infinite regression is removed by the fact that it is supernatural...from your logic). Therefore one of the events happening in or by the supernatural mindless thing could have started the natural universe.

I did not question if omnipotence requires supernaturality. I asked you to show logically why omnipotence is required by the first cause. I already know that you think it is required.

#84 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:10 PM

I did read it. That's why I asked the question....If being supernatural is what makes God not need a cause then why does a mindless supernatural thing need a cause?

You say that the role of intelligence lies in the power of choice but do not demonstrate why choice is required for a cause.
If the supernatural removes the need for a cause, then a mindless supernatural thing does not need a cause to have events occurring in it or by it (infinite regression is removed by the fact that it is supernatural...from your logic). Therefore one of the events happening in or by the supernatural mindless thing could have started the natural universe.

I did not question if omnipotence requires supernaturality. I asked you to show logically why omnipotence is required by the first cause. I already know that you think it is required.


With all due respect, it might be helpful for you to read this entire thread over again from the beginning...

The (supernatural) uncaused cause has to be intelligent, as it is *will and choice* that escape the infinite regress - we've repeatedly explained why this is the case. In fact, that's what the majority of the discussion has focused on. Refer back to my "Buzz Lightyear" post, etc.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#85 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:55 PM

With all due respect, it might be helpful for you to read this entire thread over again from the beginning...

The (supernatural) uncaused cause has to be intelligent, as it is *will and choice* that escape the infinite regress - we've repeatedly explained why this is the case. In fact, that's what the majority of the discussion has focused on. Refer back to my "Buzz Lightyear" post, etc.

Maybe you need to read the whole thread. Gilbo says that it is the fact that God is supernatural that keeps him from being subject to infinite regress. You are saying that it is intelligence that keeps Him from being subject to infinite regress. Which is it?

If it is intelligence then why are humans subject to the problem of infinite regress?

If it is being supernatural, then why can't a mindless supernatural thing be the first cause?

And....how does that video clip relate to anything we are discussing here?

#86 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:07 AM

Maybe you need to read the whole thread. Gilbo says that it is the fact that God is supernatural that keeps him from being subject to infinite regress. You are saying that it is intelligence that keeps Him from being subject to infinite regress. Which is it?

If it is intelligence then why are humans subject to the problem of infinite regress?

If it is being supernatural, then why can't a mindless supernatural thing be the first cause?

And....how does that video clip relate to anything we are discussing here?


There is still the requirement of intelligence as well as the requirement of being supernatural, one doesn't cancel out the other.

The first causes needs to be

- timeless: exist outside of time, eternal, required for no infinite regress
- spaceless: must exist outside of the universe since the universe cannot create itself
- omnipotent: to create energy (let alone the universe) the first cause must have power beyond what can be comprehended within natural law (ergo the 1st law stating that energy cannot be created would not apply)

-Intelligence is required as a matter of being a causal force.

William Lane Craig does a wonderful job explaining it here, (being personal is a character of intelligence ;) )

His 2nd point covers the regress part



#87 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:06 AM

I was not trying to relegate God to mere physical law. I was pointing out that it was quite convenient that this logical exercise imbued the God with properties that made It immune to the limits placed on an eternal mindless universe. That would be called special pleading.

Are you saying that infinite regress of events is an impossibility? Why is it impossible? Is eternity impossible? If eternity is possible, then is it possible that events can occur throughout eternity? If not, then how is it you plan on worshiping God in heaven throughout eternity. Isn't worshiping an event?

In regard to the other thread, I didn't claim that reactions occur when the reactants are not close together. In fact, in an earlier post in that thread, I said that reactions occur spontaneously if the reactants are close together. You stated that spontaneous reactions don't occur in nature. In the post that you questioned, I asked you to define spontaneous reaction and sarcastically stated that you probably believed that spontaneous chemical reactions were ones that occurred without the chemical reactants close together.
Your reply to that post made me realize that we are not communicating effectively and it would be best if I tried to figure out how to write a post that you could understand. When I do figure it out, I will reply to that post.


Essentially you are asking why isn't the cause mindless? I believe I have addressed this elsewhere, I'll try and find it

An infinite regress of past events is impossible
- a finite begining is required borne from logic
- a finite begining is required borne from science (Big Bang cosmology)

#88 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:04 AM

Essentially you are asking why isn't the cause mindless? I believe I have addressed this elsewhere, I'll try and find it

An infinite regress of past events is impossible
- a finite begining is required borne from logic
- a finite begining is required borne from science (Big Bang cosmology)

No. Essentially I am asking why the supernatural first cause can't be mindless. You said that if something is supernatural then the problem of infinite regress is eliminated. Do you now say that things in the supernatural reality are subject to the laws of cause and effect?

If things in the supernatural are subject to the laws of cause and effect, then why isn't the supernatural God you are using subject to those laws? Is it just because you decided that He must be free of the laws of cause and effect in order to be the first cause?

In the material reality, mindless things are subject to the laws of cause and effect.
In the material reality, intelligent beings are subject to the laws of cause and effect.
In the supernatural reality, mindless things are subject to the laws of cause and effect.
However, in the supernatural reality intelligent beings are not subject to the laws of cause and effect. What logic leads you to that particular conclusion?

#89 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:14 AM

There is still the requirement of intelligence as well as the requirement of being supernatural, one doesn't cancel out the other.

The first causes needs to be

- timeless: exist outside of time, eternal, required for no infinite regress
- spaceless: must exist outside of the universe since the universe cannot create itself
- omnipotent: to create energy (let alone the universe) the first cause must have power beyond what can be comprehended within natural law (ergo the 1st law stating that energy cannot be created would not apply)

-Intelligence is required as a matter of being a causal force.

William Lane Craig does a wonderful job explaining it here, (being personal is a character of intelligence Posted Image )


His 2nd point covers the regress part



Sorry wasn't meant to reply to that.. What you seek is here in the video, I can find more if you like. William Lane Craig is really good at explaining it, however its as I said before, intelligence is required as being a causal force

#90 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:37 AM

Sorry wasn't meant to reply to that.. What you seek is here in the video, I can find more if you like. William Lane Craig is really good at explaining it, however its as I said before, intelligence is required as being a causal force

Yeah, I thought I would have to look at the videos. Thanks for pointing me back to them. I am not at a place where I can view them.. I won't be able to get to that until late tonight (at least 12 hrs from now).

#91 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:50 AM

Yeah, I thought I would have to look at the videos. Thanks for pointing me back to them. I am not at a place where I can view them.. I won't be able to get to that until late tonight (at least 12 hrs from now).


No probs Posted Image Hope you enjoy it


@ 2.30 Craig drops the bomb, and the other guy is shaking his head but a few seconds later he stops thinks about it and realises Craig is correct and starts to smile :)

#92 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:32 PM

No. Essentially I am asking why the supernatural first cause can't be mindless. You said that if something is supernatural then the problem of infinite regress is eliminated. Do you now say that things in the supernatural reality are subject to the laws of cause and effect?

If things in the supernatural are subject to the laws of cause and effect, then why isn't the supernatural God you are using subject to those laws? Is it just because you decided that He must be free of the laws of cause and effect in order to be the first cause?

In the material reality, mindless things are subject to the laws of cause and effect.
In the material reality, intelligent beings are subject to the laws of cause and effect.
In the supernatural reality, mindless things are subject to the laws of cause and effect.
However, in the supernatural reality intelligent beings are not subject to the laws of cause and effect. What logic leads you to that particular conclusion?


Again... Either way, there is an uncaused eternal cause, since something cannot come from nothing (in other words, something had to have existed forever). Either this uncaused cause is mindless, or, intelligent. So which is it? ...A mindless uncaused cause would lead to an impossible infinite regress of events, since all events in such a scenario would be caused as a direct result of an endless string of past changes to that which exists. Meaning they depend on one prior change after another prior change (after another, after another...) in order to have occurred. Meaning they couldn't happen without the prior string of connected changes... If we were to follow a timeline "back through eternity", and then start coming forward to the present, one change would have led to another change, which would have led to another change, which would have led to another change, so on and so forth... And BEFORE any single change or event, all of the PRIOR changes must have occurred in order for that single change or event to occur, or it never would have occurred. But this is impossible, since an eternal existence in this mindless scenario would require that infinite past changes and events have transpired to get to our present time (the existence of you and I). On the other hand, an intelligent, all powerful being (as the uncaused cause) does NOT rely on a string of past events. At any given moment, an intelligent all powerful being can cause an event (such as our universe) which does NOT rely on an endless string of past changes. Rather, such an event would rely on God's existence, His power, and His will and choice to cause whatever event He desires at any given moment.

If you were God, and you wanted to clap your hands, would you be able to clap your hands at any given moment, despite your eternal past? Of course! ...You'd raise your arms, you would clap your hands together - and it would happen right then and there. In the same way, God could have created our universe at any given moment of his choosing. Conversely, a mindless something can't just choose to do "x" (like clapping hands) at any given moment. Instead, something would have to exist PRIOR to x, and would have to change in some way, so as to cause x to happen. But that's not all... Whatever came before x that changed so as to cause x, was itself the result of another prior change, and then that change was the result of another prior change, and that change was the result of another prior change... And so on, "backwards through an infinite past". (An impossible infinite regress.)

#93 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:33 AM

No probs Posted Image Hope you enjoy it


@ 2.30 Craig drops the bomb, and the other guy is shaking his head but a few seconds later he stops thinks about it and realises Craig is correct and starts to smile Posted Image

First Craig states that the first cause must be beyond space and time. Then he says it must be intelligent because an unintelligent cause would have to have an anticedent. He even states that a first cause that doesn't have the capability of choice is limited by the framework of time.

That doesn't fit logically, because if the supernatural intelligent cause is not limited by the framework of time then neither would a supernatural mindless cause be so limited.

Other problems:

Craig states that only 2 things can be beyond space and time...an intelligent mind and abstract concepts (mathematical numbers ...etc). He never explains the logic behind this leap. How is an intelligent mind beyond space and time? Are our minds beyond space and time? If you believe so, then how would you show it logically?
Does W.L. Craig have an example besides his concept of what God is?

In saying that the computer's definition is just the same as the definition of God, Craig is assuming the consequent. That definition of God is only a concept that was determined by humans. We have no proveable idea of what a God should or should not be.

#94 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:54 AM

Again... Either way, there is an uncaused eternal cause, since something cannot come from nothing (in other words, something had to have existed forever). Either this uncaused cause is mindless, or, intelligent. So which is it? ...A mindless uncaused cause would lead to an impossible infinite regress of events, since all events in such a scenario would be caused as a direct result of an endless string of past changes to that which exists. Meaning they depend on one prior change after another prior change (after another, after another...) in order to have occurred. Meaning they couldn't happen without the prior string of connected changes... If we were to follow a timeline "back through eternity", and then start coming forward to the present, one change would have led to another change, which would have led to another change, which would have led to another change, so on and so forth... And BEFORE any single change or event, all of the PRIOR changes must have occurred in order for that single change or event to occur, or it never would have occurred. But this is impossible, since an eternal existence in this mindless scenario would require that infinite past changes and events have transpired to get to our present time (the existence of you and I). On the other hand, an intelligent, all powerful being (as the uncaused cause) does NOT rely on a string of past events. At any given moment, an intelligent all powerful being can cause an event (such as our universe) which does NOT rely on an endless string of past changes. Rather, such an event would rely on God's existence, His power, and His will and choice to cause whatever event He desires at any given moment.

I understand the concept of infinite regress. You just haven't shown logically why God gets a pass on infinite regress while everything else, including our intelligent minds, is constrained by the requirement of a prior event in order to have or perform a current event.
You are simply saying that the cause must be intelligent (without a logical proof) and all powerfull (without a logical proof). Well, this matches one of the concepts of God...therefore God must exist.
If the first cause is outside of time, then the constraints that come with being in a time stream do not affect the first cause no matter what form that first cause is...intelligent or mindless. You cannot logically limit something outside of time with constraints that require time in order to be constraints at all.

If you were God, and you wanted to clap your hands, would you be able to clap your hands at any given moment, despite your eternal past? Of course! ...You'd raise your arms, you would clap your hands together - and it would happen right then and there. In the same way, God could have created our universe at any given moment of his choosing. Conversely, a mindless something can't just choose to do "x" (like clapping hands) at any given moment. Instead, something would have to exist PRIOR to x, and would have to change in some way, so as to cause x to happen. But that's not all... Whatever came before x that changed so as to cause x, was itself the result of another prior change, and then that change was the result of another prior change, and that change was the result of another prior change... And so on, "backwards through an infinite past". (An impossible infinite regress.)

The whole "logical proof of God" depends on God being outside of time and space. If something is outside of time and space, there is no "moment of his choosing" or "PRIOR to x" as we conceive of such things. Therefore, you cannot logically constrain anything outside of time and space with the limitations of time and space. Causality is one of those limitations. You can't have infinite regress of events if there is no "before".

So, either God outside of time and space has the same causality limitations as a mindless first cause outside of time and space, or God has some other attribute that eliminates the His dependence on causality. Intelligence doesn't work logically because you can't show any example of intelligence overturning the causality limitation.
The statement "because I said so" is not a logical proof.

#95 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:15 AM

1. First Craig states that the first cause must be beyond space and time.

2. Then he says it must be intelligent because an unintelligent cause would have to have an anticedent.

3. He even states that a first cause that doesn't have the capability of choice is limited by the framework of time.

4. That doesn't fit logically, because if the supernatural intelligent cause is not limited by the framework of time then neither would a supernatural mindless cause be so limited.

Other problems:

5. Craig states that only 2 things can be beyond space and time...an intelligent mind and abstract concepts (mathematical numbers ...etc). He never explains the logic behind this leap. How is an intelligent mind beyond space and time? Are our minds beyond space and time? If you believe so, then how would you show it logically?
Does W.L. Craig have an example besides his concept of what God is?

6. In saying that the computer's definition is just the same as the definition of God, Craig is assuming the consequent. That definition of God is only a concept that was determined by humans. We have no proveable idea of what a God should or should not be.


1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Where did he say that? I got that a timeless cause without choice cannot choose to create an effect that is not timeless. In that there needs to be a personal agent that freely chooses to create an event in time without any anticeded determining conditions.

4. He never said it was limited?.... He said that a non intelligent timeless cause cannot create a temporal effect, in that the non-intelligent timeless cause will always cause a timeless effect since it cannot choose to do otherwise.

5. He is saying it from the point of being immaterial, in that God would be a timeless incorporeal mind. Our minds are beyond space, (though this depends if you believe that there is something supernatural about the mind, I do), but not time... This is where the stipulation of a timeless mind comes in... Its not a problem. Just another God-like attribute that is required of the first cause based on what the first cause needs to be like from what we can assume via logic.

6. No he is saying that when you take away all the attributes that make a computer a computer and give it the God-like attributes required of a first-cause then you are essentially affirming God just by the arbitrary name "computer", since its no longer a computer as it has no computer-like attributes. Essentially he was having a joke at Craig trying to claim something as God-like but not God.
  • goldliger likes this

#96 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:29 PM

I understand the concept of infinite regress. You just haven't shown logically why God gets a pass on infinite regress while everything else, including our intelligent minds, is constrained by the requirement of a prior event in order to have or perform a current event.
You are simply saying that the cause must be intelligent (without a logical proof) and all powerfull (without a logical proof). Well, this matches one of the concepts of God...therefore God must exist.
If the first cause is outside of time, then the constraints that come with being in a time stream do not affect the first cause no matter what form that first cause is...intelligent or mindless. You cannot logically limit something outside of time with constraints that require time in order to be constraints at all.


The whole "logical proof of God" depends on God being outside of time and space. If something is outside of time and space, there is no "moment of his choosing" or "PRIOR to x" as we conceive of such things. Therefore, you cannot logically constrain anything outside of time and space with the limitations of time and space. Causality is one of those limitations. You can't have infinite regress of events if there is no "before".

So, either God outside of time and space has the same causality limitations as a mindless first cause outside of time and space, or God has some other attribute that eliminates the His dependence on causality. Intelligence doesn't work logically because you can't show any example of intelligence overturning the causality limitation.
The statement "because I said so" is not a logical proof.


A cause must come before an effect, in order for the effect to occur. So there must necessarily be a "before" (a past, present, and future in relation to changes and events).

Now, you say that I haven't logically justified why God escapes an impossible infinite regress. Yet that's exactly what I've just done (once again). If you disagree, then you need to logically substantiate your claim. Simply stating that I haven't logically supported why intelligence escapes an infinite regress, is not a valid argument. It's merely an arbitrary assertion on your part.

Here again is my explanation:

Either way, there is an uncaused eternal cause, since something cannot come from nothing (in other words, something had to have existed forever). Either this uncaused cause is mindless, or, intelligent. So which is it? ...A mindless uncaused cause would lead to an impossible infinite regress of events, since all events in such a scenario would be caused as a direct result of an endless string of past changes to that which exists. Meaning they depend on one prior change after another prior change (after another, after another...) in order to have occurred. Meaning they couldn't happen without the prior string of connected changes... If we were to follow a timeline "back through eternity", and then start coming forward to the present, one change would have led to another change, which would have led to another change, which would have led to another change, so on and so forth... And BEFORE any single change or event, all of the PRIOR changes must have occurred in order for that single change or event to occur, or it never would have occurred. But this is impossible, since an eternal existence in this mindless scenario would require that infinite past changes and events have transpired to get to our present time (the existence of you and I). On the other hand, an intelligent, all powerful being (as the uncaused cause) does NOT rely on a string of past events. At any given moment, an intelligent all powerful being can cause an event (such as our universe) which does NOT rely on an endless string of past changes. Rather, such an event would rely on God's existence, His power, and His will and choice to cause whatever event He desires at any given moment.

If you were God, and you wanted to clap your hands, would you be able to clap your hands at any given moment, despite your eternal past? Of course! ...You'd raise your arms, you would clap your hands together - and it would happen right then and there. In the same way, God could have created our universe at any given moment of his choosing. Conversely, a mindless something can't just choose to do "x" (like clapping hands) at any given moment. Instead, something would have to exist PRIOR to x, and would have to change in some way, so as to cause x to happen. But that's not all... Whatever came before x that changed so as to cause x, was itself the result of another prior change, and then that change was the result of another prior change, and that change was the result of another prior change... And so on, "backwards through an infinite past". (An impossible infinite regress.)

#97 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:57 PM

Jonas:

Here's yet another example to demonstrate why an intelligent uncaused cause is not bound by (an impossible) infinite regress...

Imagine an oak tree in a mindless existence. How did that oak tree come about? It was the result of a past change - another oak tree that dropped an acorn. And where did the "prior" tree come from? It was the result of a past change - another oak tree that dropped an acorn. Now let's just say for the sake of example that this mindless existence (of oak trees) has existed forever. I.e., a forest of oak trees represents our "mindless eternal something". What this would mean is that a present day oak tree could never have come about, because an infinite number of past events (oak trees born from acorns) would have to be traversed to get to said oak tree!

But now... Could an eternal, all powerful, intelligent being plant (or create) an oak tree without that tree having to come from the acorn of a past tree, which came from the acorn of a tree prior, which came from the acorn of a tree prior, etc., etc.?

Of course! God would simply create the tree as an act of will and choice, under His own power. The tree would NOT need to come as a result of an infinite/past causal chain, because it came about by entirely different means.

This demonstrates the simple difference between mindless causation, and intelligent causation.

If you (still) dispute this or claim that the logic is not shown, the burden is squarely on you to explain why. Your explanation should include addressing this simple question: Why could an all powerful God not create a tree as an act of choice, as opposed to a tree which results from an (impossible) endless past chain of events?

#98 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:09 PM

Jonas:

Here's yet another example to demonstrate why an intelligent uncaused cause is not bound by (an impossible) infinite regress...

Imagine an oak tree in a mindless existence. How did that oak tree come about? It was the result of a past change - another oak tree that dropped an acorn. And where did the "prior" tree come from? It was the result of a past change - another oak tree that dropped an acorn. Now let's just say for the sake of example that this mindless existence (of oak trees) has existed forever. I.e., a forest of oak trees represents our "mindless eternal something". What this would mean is that a present day oak tree could never have come about, because an infinite number of past events (oak trees born from acorns) would have to be traversed to get to said oak tree!

But now... Could an eternal, all powerful, intelligent being plant (or create) an oak tree without that tree having to come from the acorn of a past tree, which came from the acorn of a tree prior, which came from the acorn of a tree prior, etc., etc.?

Of course! God would simply create the tree as an act of will and choice, under His own power. The tree would NOT need to come as a result of an infinite/past causal chain, because it came about by entirely different means.

This demonstrates the simple difference between mindless causation, and intelligent causation.

If you (still) dispute this or claim that the logic is not shown, the burden is squarely on you to explain why. Your explanation should include addressing this simple question: Why could an all powerful God not create a tree as an act of choice, as opposed to a tree which results from an (impossible) endless past chain of events?

The simple difference between mindless causation and intelligent causation is not so simple. You state that the difference is about the act of will that God uses. You have an act of will also, do you not? Yet you would not say that your choices are immune to the law of causation. Why not? You are simply saying that because God is intelligent that He is not subject to the law of cause and effect. You are simply saying it but not logically supporting it so it becomes a arbitrary statement. Until you show, logically, why His intelligence gives him a pass and mine does not give me a pass, the "logical proof" that God exists is not valid.

#99 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:54 PM

The simple difference between mindless causation and intelligent causation is not so simple. You state that the difference is about the act of will that God uses. You have an act of will also, do you not? Yet you would not say that your choices are immune to the law of causation. Why not? You are simply saying that because God is intelligent that He is not subject to the law of cause and effect. You are simply saying it but not logically supporting it so it becomes a arbitrary statement. Until you show, logically, why His intelligence gives him a pass and mine does not give me a pass, the "logical proof" that God exists is not valid.


Of course we are limited by the law of causation.

An act of will requires the cause of a mind to create the act. For example if I were to choose to reject atheism this is an act of will, a decision, a choice. It doesn't come from nothing it derives from my own mind. Since this thing isn't physical it doesn't require a physical cause, rather its cause is merely my own will acting as an agent. However God, being omni-potent can create physical things from mere will, this is what the BB implies since its occurance defies natural law, which implies a supernatural cause.

God is immune to cause and effect by being timeless, eternal, outside of what we would call existence which hinges on our concept of time.

As Craig said, a timeless unintelligent cause cannot choose to create a temporal effect outside of its characteristics. Additionally an unintelligent cause would have no plans or purpose for our lives, hence if this is true then life (in light of the big picture) means literally nothing.
  • goldliger likes this

#100 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:20 AM

Of course we are limited by the law of causation.

An act of will requires the cause of a mind to create the act. For example if I were to choose to reject atheism this is an act of will, a decision, a choice. It doesn't come from nothing it derives from my own mind. Since this thing isn't physical it doesn't require a physical cause, rather its cause is merely my own will acting as an agent. However God, being omni-potent can create physical things from mere will, this is what the BB implies since its occurance defies natural law, which implies a supernatural cause.

God is immune to cause and effect by being timeless, eternal, outside of what we would call existence which hinges on our concept of time.

As Craig said, a timeless unintelligent cause cannot choose to create a temporal effect outside of its characteristics. Additionally an unintelligent cause would have no plans or purpose for our lives, hence if this is true then life (in light of the big picture) means literally nothing.

Why must choice be involved in order for something to occur outside of its characteristics if the unintelligent cause is outside of what we call existence? Are you saying that a timeless, eternal mindless thing outside of what we would call existence cannot cause a temporal effect? Why not? Since cause and effect are no longer limiting this supernatural mindless thing, random events are able to occur without a cause. One of those random events could be the impetus for our temporal existence.

I am not saying that this is the truth, nor do I rule out the possibility of the existence of God. I am just saying that the logical "proof" put forward in this thread is not really able to prove that God must exist. In the same vein, I could not use the logic in this "proof" to show that God must not exist.

Whether there is a purpose for life or not is really outside of our discussion. That is, unless you can show that purpose is required and then include it as part of the proof. Wanting life to have a purpose is not the same as there actually being a purpose.

Being hungry does not prove that we have bread.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users