if the universe were eternal [...] — Wayfarer
It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself, as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.
Premise-1: Everything in the world has a cause. — Brian A
Because there are now two classes of things in the universe: things that "began" to exist, and therefore have causes; and things that exist but never actually "began" to exist. — fishfry
hey fishfry, what kinds of things exactly don't 'begin to exist'? I think if you look at any object in the known universe, then all of them 'began to exist' at some point in time, didn't they? Even atoms began to exist, we are told. So, without any hand-waving, what kinds of things, generally speaking, don't begin to exist? — Wayfarer
I'm stating William Lane Craig's argument in order to characterize it as disingenuous and silly. Was that unclear in my post? — fishfry
So I asked the question: what is an example of the types of things that don't have a beginning? Because I can't really see why an argument based on this is 'disingenuous'. — Wayfarer
The uncaused cause is God. That would be Craig's point. If you find it sensible I guess we'll agree to disagree. — fishfry
"If you have assumed causality is necessary, you have already assumed god."
Brian:
This seems too good to be true. Is it true that if we assume the existence of causality in general (which, incidentally, seems to be a common-sense view), and trace it back, "God exists" is the necessary conclusion? So then, non-theists necessarily hold that causality is unreal?
So I asked the question: what is an example of the types of things that don't have a beginning? Because I can't really see why an argument based on this is 'disingenuous'.
— Wayfarer
The uncaused cause is God. That would be Craig's point. If you find it sensible I guess we'll agree to disagree. — fishfry
No the anti-thesis is that causes are necessarily contingent, only probabilities, contingent events that could have always been otherwise, that's all that is available to us. — Cavacava
How does the fact that the premise used is specifically picked to make the argument work make the argument any less valid or sound? — Chany
Naturalism would oppose supernaturalism as immanence vs transcendence. So the first cause or prime mover would have to be understood as a self-organising tendency arising "within", instead of some externally imposed agency. — apokrisis
“We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.”
The 'inside vs outside' or 'immanent vs transcendent' division doesn't have to be understood in terms of a sky-father, indeed in Platonist philosophy it generally was not understood in those terms at all. — Wayfarer
Premise-1: Everything in the world has a cause
....
Conclusion: Therefore, it is very probable that a non-contingent first cause exists; — dclements
The conclusion violates premise 1. Therefore the chain of reasoning must be wrong.
Also what do you mean by saying that "is very improbable that there is an infinite chain of causes going back forever?" Why is that improbable? What is the probability? Define your probability model and show your calculations.
We can use Occam's razor to dismiss it: A hypothesis involving finite things is simpler than one involving infinite things. As such, until it is refuted, we should stick the simpler 'finite chain of causes' hypothesis. — Samuel Lacrampe
if Occam leads to the conclusion that it's simpler to believe in an imaginary supernatural being than it is to believe in a naturalistic explanation of the universe ... then Occam's razor needs a new blade. — fishfry
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.