The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics

[EssentialSacrifice]

I’m saying the first cause doesn’t have to be intelligent

So it's your definition (everything after this in your post is your human conjecture only)... see K's above... that's the definition and the why.

[Kenny]

Ken wrote:
By definition, the unmoved mover has always been in motion.

Ken,

Can you show, by definition or otherwise, why you believe this to be true?

Good point. My mistake. I should have worded differently. I should have simply mentioned the possibility of the unmoved mover always being in motion.

Ken

Can you show why it's even possible then?

Okay. Consider this possibility. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, that it has always existed and is currently in motion. From this we can deduce it was probably always in motion.

Ken

[EssentialSacrifice]

Matter is neither created

So how did it get here, if not for creation ? It couldn't have always been here if the universe is expanding, growing...so, it had a beginning.... not a forever here...

[Kenny]

If the first cause is not intelligent then it can't be the first cause.

Why?

K

The argument has been popularised by William Lane Craig as an addendum to his Kalam cosmological argument. It goes somewhat like this:
If the "first cause" was inanimate, then it could not will the changes necessary to break free from its eternal state and cause something else.

For example, picture the eternal "first cause" as water at freezing temperature.
If this is the eternal something then it will eternally always remain at freezing temperature.
There is nothing outside of this frozen water environment to bring about a change within such.
Furthermore, such can't will a change within itself because it doesn't possess intelligence or power to make such a decision.
Therefore something inanimate as the eternal something would remain eternally static and changeless.

Only a being with intelligence and power to change can be the eternal something and as such the cause of everything else.

How about the possibility of it being in an eternal state of change, constantly changing other things as well. There would be no need to break free of anything.
If we consider the frozen water example, if the temperature is in a constant state of change, so will the water.

Ken

[Kenny]

Matter is neither created

So how did it get here, if not for creation ? It couldn't have always been here if the universe is expanding, growing...so, it had a beginning.... not a forever here...

Just because the Universe is expanding, does not mean the matter within the Universe has not always existed.

Ken

[EssentialSacrifice]

Just because the Universe is expanding, does not mean the matter within the Universe has not always existed.

well then what was that Big Bang thing all about, if not the creation of all matter ever to be had in the known universe ?

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

here's the rest of it...

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

[Kenny]

Just because the Universe is expanding, does not mean the matter within the Universe has not always existed.

well then what was that Big Bang thing all about, if not the creation of all matter ever to be had in the known universe ?

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

here's the rest of it...

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

The site you listed says the singularity may have came from a black hole, or that it may have sprang into existence from nothing. Whatever the case, they admit they do not know where the singularity came from.
This site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Does not claim it came from anywhere, the explanation starts with it existing. Obviously scientists do not have an answer for the origins of the singularity. I can understand the theists desire to insert God where scientists do not have an answer but that isn’t science; that’s religious belief.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

If the first cause is not intelligent then it can't be the first cause.

Why?

K

The argument has been popularised by William Lane Craig as an addendum to his Kalam cosmological argument. It goes somewhat like this:
If the "first cause" was inanimate, then it could not will the changes necessary to break free from its eternal state and cause something else.

For example, picture the eternal "first cause" as water at freezing temperature.
If this is the eternal something then it will eternally always remain at freezing temperature.
There is nothing outside of this frozen water environment to bring about a change within such.
Furthermore, such can't will a change within itself because it doesn't possess intelligence or power to make such a decision.
Therefore something inanimate as the eternal something would remain eternally static and changeless.

Only a being with intelligence and power to change can be the eternal something and as such the cause of everything else.

How about the possibility of it being in an eternal state of change, constantly changing other things as well. There would be no need to break free of anything.
If we consider the frozen water example, if the temperature is in a constant state of change, so will the water.

Ken

Well, you're on track for a reasonable counter.
So then, the "eternal state of change" must also have an "eternal state of effect".
Right? To logically be an eternal change, then it must also have an eternal effect. The change cannot come after the effect or vice-versa.

The question then is, is such a property of the universe that we find ourselves within -- that is, are things caused as eternal as their effect?
Is the "cause and effect" that we experience illusory, or does time really exist as a real property of our universe (and as such effects cannot precede their cause)?

The fact we experience change, something things earlier, other things later, kind of points to our universe not being the eternal something.

[Philip]

Ken: I’m saying the first cause doesn’t have to be intelligent. When we say “first cause” I am referring to something that has always existed and is responsible, or partly responsible for the existence of other things. When we say first cause, I also don’t assume it must be intelligent, and I don’t assume there could only be one first cause, but that there could be multiple.

What we see at the beginning of our universe is great design, complexity, functionality, incredible energy, comprehensive and necessary interactions of all elements. So, if one insists that the seeds of all of this were always there - they are either saying that all of this unfathomable complexity and design either always existed without a cause, without an intelligence that stands outside of itself. And so "it" (whatever could have been always in existence) had all of this mind-blowing sophistication without ever needing a cause. OR one is saying that whatever always existed - the seeds of what burst forward - by itself and without a cause - GAINED unbelievable sophistication of design, function, action and purpose all on its own, given enough time. This is the equivalent of saying that rocks, given enough time, can organize and gain intelligence, and then author a book on quantum mechanics. But we all know that rocks dream about NOTHING! And NOTHING gets smarter or organized on it's own. Nor does something not existing suddenly burst into existence by itself, uncaused/unguided. This is all pure Pop Metaphysical thinking! And, I find it desperate beyond comprehension (not to mention self-deluding) for someone to even entertain this to be possible. It CERTAINLY isn't scientifically based. If such things are possible without a cause, able to materialize itself into existence, then organize with mind-blowing scale, design and functionality, then NOTHING, no matter how theoretically or probability wise, currently thought to be impossible, actually IS impossible. And to think people who believe such things laugh because the Bible says that Jesus turned water to wine. Wow! And then you ask someone how any of this could even remotely be possible, and all they do is want to go on about dependent processes that are WAY after what had to make them possible.

[Kenny]

If the first cause is not intelligent then it can't be the first cause.

Why?

K

The argument has been popularised by William Lane Craig as an addendum to his Kalam cosmological argument. It goes somewhat like this:
If the "first cause" was inanimate, then it could not will the changes necessary to break free from its eternal state and cause something else.

For example, picture the eternal "first cause" as water at freezing temperature.
If this is the eternal something then it will eternally always remain at freezing temperature.
There is nothing outside of this frozen water environment to bring about a change within such.
Furthermore, such can't will a change within itself because it doesn't possess intelligence or power to make such a decision.
Therefore something inanimate as the eternal something would remain eternally static and changeless.

Only a being with intelligence and power to change can be the eternal something and as such the cause of everything else.

How about the possibility of it being in an eternal state of change, constantly changing other things as well. There would be no need to break free of anything.
If we consider the frozen water example, if the temperature is in a constant state of change, so will the water.

Ken

Well, you're on track for a reasonable counter.
So then, the "eternal state of change" must also have an "eternal state of effect".
Right? To logically be an eternal change, then it must also have an eternal effect. The change cannot come after the effect or vice-versa.

The question then is, is such a property of the universe that we find ourselves within -- that is, are things caused as eternal as their effect?
Is the "cause and effect" that we experience illusory, or does time really exist as a real property of our universe (and as such effects cannot precede their cause)?

The fact we experience change, something things earlier, other things later, kind of points to our universe not being the eternal something.

So if I understand your position correctly, God existed for eternity immobile, then at some point in history, he began willing things into existence, and started action. Is this correct? If so, why did he choose to be immobile for so long, and how is this immobile period indiscernible from non existence?
Perhaps I’ve gotten it all wrong; if so please explain

Ken

[Kenny]

Ken: I’m saying the first cause doesn’t have to be intelligent. When we say “first cause” I am referring to something that has always existed and is responsible, or partly responsible for the existence of other things. When we say first cause, I also don’t assume it must be intelligent, and I don’t assume there could only be one first cause, but that there could be multiple.

What we see at the beginning of our universe is great design, complexity, functionality, incredible energy, comprehensive and necessary interactions of all elements. So, if one insists that the seeds of all of this were always there - they are either saying that all of this unfathomable complexity and design either always existed without a cause, without an intelligence that stands outside of itself. And so "it" (whatever could have been always in existence) had all of this mind-blowing sophistication without ever needing a cause. OR one is saying that whatever always existed - the seeds of what burst forward - by itself and without a cause - GAINED unbelievable sophistication of design, function, action and purpose all on its own, given enough time. This is the equivalent of saying that rocks, given enough time, can organize and gain intelligence, and then author a book on quantum mechanics. But we all know that rocks dream about NOTHING! And NOTHING gets smarter or organized on it's own. Nor does something not existing suddenly burst into existence by itself, uncaused/unguided. This is all pure Pop Metaphysical thinking! And, I find it desperate beyond comprehension (not to mention self-deluding) for someone to even entertain this to be possible. It CERTAINLY isn't scientifically based. If such things are possible without a cause, able to materialize itself into existence, then organize with mind-blowing scale, design and functionality, then NOTHING, no matter how theoretically or probability wise, currently thought to be impossible, actually IS impossible. And to think people who believe such things laugh because the Bible says that Jesus turned water to wine. Wow! And then you ask someone how any of this could even remotely be possible, and all they do is want to go on about dependent processes that are WAY after what had to make them possible.

I don’t have an answer to the questions you asked, but I do know the vast majority of the Universe we do not know about. Perhaps your answer lies somewhere in that vast amount of ignorance we have concerning the laws and what is possible in the part of the Universe we are unfamiliar with. I can understand a desire to define God in a way that he can be inserted as an answer to any question one might have, and I am sure that system has served you well; but for me it doesn’t work, it just sounds like “God of the gaps” as they say.

Ken

[SoCalExile]

Ken, in Aristotelian terms movement/mobility is the same as change. So when God is decribed as "immobile", it means that He is unchanging.

Follow me here:

1: For Him to be God, He must not have any potentiality, because potentiality implies less-than-perfection.

2: Therefore, God must be all actuality, which means He does not change, He is "immobile".

You can't invoke a God-of-the-gaps argument here, since this is Platonic/Aristotlelian logic. They deduced these qualities as logical requirements for the Unmoved Mover.

[abelcainsbrother]

The atheists and agnostics I deal with are in denial of their faith and have made science their god and yet they deny they have faith in it.You start to engage them about science and all kinds of belief come out and yet they don't even think it is belief coming out.They have a whole list of anti-God talking points too that is like a bible to them too,you bring up the bible and they go into their bible and grab a talking point from it.

[Kurieuo]

Well, you're on track for a reasonable counter.
So then, the "eternal state of change" must also have an "eternal state of effect".
Right? To logically be an eternal change, then it must also have an eternal effect. The change cannot come after the effect or vice-versa.

The question then is, is such a property of the universe that we find ourselves within -- that is, are things caused as eternal as their effect?
Is the "cause and effect" that we experience illusory, or does time really exist as a real property of our universe (and as such effects cannot precede their cause)?

The fact we experience change, something things earlier, other things later, kind of points to our universe not being the eternal something.

So if I understand your position correctly, God existed for eternity immobile, then at some point in history, he began willing things into existence, and started action. Is this correct? If so, why did he choose to be immobile for so long, and how is this immobile period indiscernible from non existence?
Perhaps I’ve gotten it all wrong; if so please explain

Clever! You're the first on your side I have come across to actually not reject the argument out of hand, but to even entertain it.

"God existed for eternity immobile" -- that's the picture Craig presents.
It is only in such a state that there can't be a previous or after state right? (i.e., time)
So it is God existing eternally changeless and infinitely complete within Himself.

And now comes in where Craig differs to traditional theology which maintains God is timeless.
Craig posits that God willed from eternity to create the universe. This was always an eternal decision.

"When" the universe including time came into existence (i.e., "big bang"), Craig believes the only logical route is to say God entered into time.
Thus, God is timeless and unchanging without Creation, and willfully chooses to enter into time in virtue of God's true relationship with Creation.

Consider that if God was not in time, then God could not know what day "yesterday" was.
God could only know that yesterday was 27 April 2015 (AEST). Thus, God's omniscience is brought into question.

Many theologians dislike Craig's talk of God becoming temporal, but logically I see that Craig makes a lot of sense.
Only a free being that can will and has a power to break free from a timeless state can bring about something new.

And that forms the crux of Craig's main argument for an intelligent, willful and powerful being like God as the eternal and uncreated something,
rather than unintelligent matter which ought to logically be changelessly eternal.

[abelcainsbrother]

It seems to me that to a nonbeliever it is more important to them to have a problem with an eternal God like the God of the bible just sat around until he created this universe billions of years ago and that this makes no sense to them.

Yet it makes sense to them and is no problem for them to imagine the material in the universe just forming itself into the things that make up the universe on its own by the laws that govern this universe by chance without the need of a creator.

Like Stephen Hawking claiming that since there is a law of gravity the universe can create itself.I'd like to see a demonstration.