Page 4 of 25
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:17 am
by Kenny
RickD wrote:Kenny wrote:RickD wrote:Kenny wrote:SoCalExile wrote:The "Unmoved Mover" is a reference to Aristotle; his Four Causes logically require that everything that has a beginning has a cause. So if the cosmic singularity has a beginning, which it does by definition, then what caused it?
By definition the singularity doesn't have a beginning, so what makes you so sure that it does?
Ken
Kenny,
If the singularity is the unmoved mover, what caused it to expand?
There are a million possibilities, but the only honest answer I can give you is to admit I do not know.
Ken
Kenny,
It can't be the unmoved mover if something caused it to expand(move).
By definition, the unmoved mover has always been in motion.
Ken
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:55 am
by Philip
I used to believe that all atheists believe that God don't exist that they must believe it but experience has taught me that is not so.
THE very definition of an atheist is one's unbelief in ANY God or gods!
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist
"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
antonyms: believer
An AGNOSTIC believes a God or gods MIGHT or might NOT exist. I think an atheist is just a close-minded agnostic WITH GUTS!
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:39 am
by Kenny
Philip wrote:I used to believe that all atheists believe that God don't exist that they must believe it but experience has taught me that is not so.
THE very definition of an atheist is one's unbelief in ANY God or gods!
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist
"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
antonyms: believer
An AGNOSTIC believes a God or gods MIGHT or might NOT exist. I think an atheist is just a close-minded agnostic WITH GUTS!
Agnostic is the claim that the existence of God is unknowable. Atheism/Theism is about what you believe, agnosticism is about what you know.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t
Ken
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:55 am
by RickD
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?
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:12 am
by EssentialSacrifice
ken wrote:
The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being
.
The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.
Whose definition, ken, says The First Cause is not intellignt ?
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:56 am
by PaulSacramento
Kenny wrote:Philip wrote:I used to believe that all atheists believe that God don't exist that they must believe it but experience has taught me that is not so.
THE very definition of an atheist is one's unbelief in ANY God or gods!
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist
"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
antonyms: believer
An AGNOSTIC believes a God or gods MIGHT or might NOT exist. I think an atheist is just a close-minded agnostic WITH GUTS!
Agnostic is the claim that the existence of God is unknowable. Atheism/Theism is about what you believe, agnosticism is about what you know.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t
Ken
I think you need to re-read your own link there.
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:57 am
by PaulSacramento
If the first cause is not intelligent then it can't be the first cause.
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:17 pm
by SoCalExile
Kenny wrote:SoCalExile wrote:
Logically, by definition, whatever the first cause is; I.e., the Unmoved Mover, is the Creator, and is God.
Given His creation, He must be concious, consisting of pure actuality and no potentiality (more Aristotle/Aquinas terms), and perfectly good.
No that does not follow. First cause only means one thing; first cause. All that other stuff you added on does not necessary follow; that's your agenda talking.
Ken
Actually it's Aristotle. Forgive me if I don't communicate it well. But here's a some links:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_theology
http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/a ... _mover.htm
http://www.logicmuseum.com/ontological/ ... ogical.htm
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:32 pm
by Kenny
RickD wrote: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
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:36 pm
by Kenny
PaulSacramento wrote:If the first cause is not intelligent then it can't be the first cause.
Why?
K
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:44 pm
by Kenny
PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny wrote:Philip wrote:I used to believe that all atheists believe that God don't exist that they must believe it but experience has taught me that is not so.
THE very definition of an atheist is one's unbelief in ANY God or gods!
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist
"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
antonyms: believer
An AGNOSTIC believes a God or gods MIGHT or might NOT exist. I think an atheist is just a close-minded agnostic WITH GUTS!
Agnostic is the claim that the existence of God is unknowable. Atheism/Theism is about what you believe, agnosticism is about what you know.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t
Ken
I think you need to re-read your own link there.
Agnostic
noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
I was referring to the first definition; you were obviously referring to the third. But looking at the way the term is currently used, it can be defined both ways.
K
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:48 pm
by RickD
Kenny wrote:RickD wrote: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?
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:57 pm
by EssentialSacrifice
Whose definition, ken, says The First Cause is not intelligent ?
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:00 pm
by Kenny
EssentialSacrifice wrote:ken wrote:
The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being
.
The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.
Whose definition, ken, says The First Cause is not intellignt ?
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.
When we say first cause, you seem to be referring to the Cosmological argument
The problem I have with the Cosmological argument, first cause, unmoved mover or all similar arguments is, it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. But this argument proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is not qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, so it must exist outside it. Then it proclaims God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover, first cause, etc. etc.
Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which it will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of his God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!
These arguments will only work on those who presuppose the existence of God because they are the only ones who will allow you to apply rules to the opposing argument without applying them to your own.
Ken
Re: The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:00 pm
by Kurieuo
Kenny wrote:PaulSacramento wrote: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.