| KeithS |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 06:02 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
Richard Dawkins uses an argument that says essentially "You say God made everything? Well then tell me who made God?" It seems like this argument is just an attempt to distract by bringing up Aquinas' regression per se as if a first cause were necessary in the temporal sense rather than the ontological sense.
In the same argument, however, Dawkins made reference to first cause arguments based on quantum particles or gravitational forces. Ignoring the fact that particles can't cause themselves and gravitational forces are only known to originate with particles, doesn't this second argument by Dawkins refute his own argument that God must have a cause?
Also, what rational basis is there for saying God must have a cause? I've never heard anyone argue for the existence of a created God? |
| Loading... | |
| lancia |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 07:02 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by KeithS
I've never heard anyone argue for the existence of a created God?
You can find it here. |
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 07:15 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
Dawkins is simple observing that theistic assumptions about the metaphysical nature of causality are pretty baseless, and lead to apparent contradictions. He is attacking the premise:
1) Everything that exists requires a cause.
Many theists on this forum seem to interpret this as a misunderstanding, and that Dawkins has somehow failed to comprehend that the actual premise should be:
1*) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
I do not think this is the case, given how simple to understand both of these premises are. More likely then, Dawkins is making the observation that (1) is blind speculation and, by virtue of being more specific and less supported, (1*) is even blinder speculation. Basically, humans taking wild stabs at the fundamental nature of reality based on 'intuition' is like a butterfly trying to intuit the fundamental nature of an internal combustion engine. |
| Loading... | |
| Rostos |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 08:14 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Whenever i get asked this question, i simply say this question cannot be asked, let alone answered. We know the laws of causality in the natrulastic realm, that all things that begin to exist have a cause. Again, this is a law in our naturalstic realm. By definition, God is outside our realm, that is, in the supernatural realm. What laws about the supernatural realm do we know? We dont know anything. Do the laws of causality apply in the supernatural? If you say yes, how do you know?
By asking then who created God, you may as well ask, what does God eat and drink, because all iving things need food / water to survive in the naturalistic realm, God is a living being, therefore what does he eat and drink to survive?
The point is, you cannot say the laws of our world also apply to the supernatural, simply because we dont know the laws of the supernatural.....
Therefore, it is illogical to even ask the question.
|
| Loading... | |
| KeithS |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 08:17 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lanciaQuote: Originally Posted by KeithS
I've never heard anyone argue for the existence of a created God? You can find it here.
The author misstates a premise of the KCA, to ask the Dawkin's question, which looks to me to be a rhetorical debate tactic more than an argument. I can't take the article you pointed me too seriously for a number of reasons:
- The Higgs Boson was named the "God Particle" as a nick name. Physicists generally disliked the name since the particle has nothing to do with God.
- Tachyons are a hypothetical particle most physicists don't believe exist because they violate the laws of physics. Attempts to detect them have failed.
- String Theory is one of several as yet unaccepted Theories of Everything, based entirely on mathematics with no corresponding supporting observations. Spacial curvature is perhaps the best shot at detection that we'll have but the most accepted cosmological theory says space is flat vs. hyperbolic or spherical as required by string theory.
You are right, though. The author does propose that God was created, but doesn't give an argument for why this should be true. |
| Loading... | |
| ArgonGruber |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 08:20 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Atheists and Theists alike must agree on some foundational premise.
Premise: Everything that exists has a cause.
True or False? |
| Loading... | |
| KeithS |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 08:22 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
1) Everything that exists requires a cause.
1*) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
This premise is also correctly stated as
1**) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence
The second of the above is the only premise I've heard used by WLC and other theists use in debate. From the debates and the number of times I've heard theists comment on the misstatement of this premise, I concluded that Dawkins either doesn't understand or intentionally misstates this premise KCA. Quote:
humans taking wild stabs at the fundamental nature of reality based on 'intuition' is like a butterfly trying to intuit the fundamental nature of an internal combustion engine.
I very strongly agree with this statement, though I do think 1**) is more than an intuitive idea. I also think there is a lot of evidence for God that goes well beyond intuition.
|
| Loading... | |
| KeithS |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 08:27 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Rostos
Whenever i get asked this question, i simply say this question cannot be asked, let alone answered. We know the laws of causality in the natrulastic realm, that all things that begin to exist have a cause. Again, this is a law in our naturalstic realm. By definition, God is outside our realm, that is, in the supernatural realm. What laws about the supernatural realm do we know? We dont know anything. Do the laws of causality apply in the supernatural? If you say yes, how do you know?
I made this same argument on one of the forum topics last week.
Quote:
By asking then who created God, you may as well ask, what does God eat and drink, because all iving things need food / water to survive in the naturalistic realm, God is a living being, therefore what does he eat and drink to survive?
Agree.
Quote:
The point is, you cannot say the laws of our world also apply to the supernatural, simply because we dont know the laws of the supernatural.....
Therefore, it is illogical to even ask the question.
I'd say this is why I found the assertion by Dawkins comical when I first heard him say it. However, does that also mean we can't argue that God was uncaused? |
| Loading... | |
| KeithS |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 08:28 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArgonGruber
Atheists and Theists alike must agree on some foundational premise.
Premise: Everything that exists has a cause.
True or False?
False.
Now what?  |
| Loading... | |
| KeithS |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 08:31 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by KeithSQuote: Originally Posted by ArgonGruber
Atheists and Theists alike must agree on some foundational premise.
Premise: Everything that exists has a cause.
True or False? False. Now what?
OK, I've never replied to my own post before. First time.
I didn't want to seem flippant. How about we try agreeing on this instead:
1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
|
| Loading... | |
| ArgonGruber |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 08:34 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Awesome.
So, we agree with this:
"It is FALSE to say: 'Everything that exists has a cause'."
From this, I argue that the Universe does not need to have a cause, since you agreed that it is false to say that everything that exists has a cause.
Therefore, I need not posit any universe-cause whatsoever, and I avoid theism entirely. |
| Loading... | |
| Chris9809 |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 09:19 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArgonGruber
Awesome.
So, we agree with this:
"It is FALSE to say: 'Everything that exists has a cause'."
From this, I argue that the Universe does not need to have a cause, since you agreed that it is false to say that everything that exists has a cause.
Therefore, I need not posit any universe-cause whatsoever, and I avoid theism entirely.
Might want to read his second post. |
| Loading... | |
| ArgonGruber |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 09:24 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Whose second post? Keith's? I see no need to agree to his premise, since he already gave me what I wanted.
We both agree that "Everything that exists has a cause" is FALSE.
If that is false, then "Something that exists has no cause" must be true.
I argue that "something" is the Universe, and I need not posit a universe-cause. |
| Loading... | |
| Chris9809 |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 09:38 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArgonGruber
Whose second post? Keith's? I see no need to agree to his premise, since he already gave me what I wanted.
We both agree that "Everything that exists has a cause" is FALSE.
If that is false, then "Something that exists has no cause" must be true.
I argue that "something" is the Universe, and I need not posit a universe-cause.
Yes keiths. |
| Loading... | |
| ArgonGruber |
| Posted 08/18/12 at 09:40 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Chris, Keith, and Argon all agree on one point.
"Everything that exists has a cause" is false.
From this, I deductively derive the claim "Something that exists has no cause."
The existence of God is not self-evident.
The existence of the Universe is self-evident.
I have no cause for God, and I have no cause for the Universe.
Therefore, I claim that the Universe has no cause. |
| Loading... | |
