02 Jun 17
Originally posted by chaney3Ah. You're right about the regress. At no point will there ever be a cause that does not itself need to be caused. So reality is infinite after all, even if our universe had a beginning.
A 'causer' does not need a cause. It would be illogical, because that paradox would be neverending in reverse, requiring infinite 'causers'.
02 Jun 17
Originally posted by apathistThe 'creator' is the exception. There needs to be a 'causer' to it all, or none of it makes sense.
Ah. You're right about the regress. At no point will there ever be a cause that does not itself need to be caused. So reality is infinite after all, even if our universe had a beginning.
02 Jun 17
Originally posted by apathistIf you agree that everything has been caused, then can you explain how that happened?
Then the causer needs to be caused, or none of it makes sense.
If you cannot, then why the reluctance to allow for a 'causer'? Is it simply because you can't fathom what caused the 'causer' in the first place? Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
02 Jun 17
Originally posted by chaney3Causes are the explanation.
If you agree that everything has been caused, then can you explain how that happened?
If you cannot, then why the reluctance to allow for a 'causer'? Is it simply because you can't fathom what caused the 'causer' in the first place? Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
If something isn't caused, then it didn't happen. Meanwhile, if the causer doesn't need a cause, then why should an infinite reality need a cause? You know, the famous razor?
02 Jun 17
Basically, chaney, the 'first cause' is a lousy argument for creator gods in the first place, and it wouldn't indicate your particular God in the second place. And it has nothing to with the spiritual needs of mankind so it pointless in the third place.
Well, it is scary to contemplate infinity so maybe the 'first cause' thing does provide some protection.
02 Jun 17
Originally posted by apathistThings do not cause themselves.
Basically, chaney, the 'first cause' is a lousy argument for creator gods in the first place, and it wouldn't indicate your particular God in the second place. And it has nothing to with the spiritual needs of mankind so it pointless in the third place.
Well, it is scary to contemplate infinity so maybe the 'first cause' thing does provide some protection.
Stating that a 'causer' is required is much different than knowing who or what the causer is.
The problem for you is that you would rather dismiss the entire causer issue to avoid the implication. It does not make any sense to have a universe that somehow came to be, all by itself. No sense at all.
02 Jun 17
Originally posted by chaney3That sounds like an argument against the first cause idea.
Things do not cause themselves.
Stating that a 'causer' is required is much different than knowing who or what the causer is.
Okay. But I see no reason to suppose a 'causer' is required. The razor, remember? I notice you ignored that point.
The problem for you is that you would rather dismiss the entire causer issue to avoid the implication. It does not make any sense to have a universe that somehow came to be, all by itself. No sense at all.
Then it also makes no sense to have a god that somehow came to be, all by itself. No sense at all.
Both problems averted by infinity.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
02 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistYou no what is more disheartening than swallowing the idea of infinity...someday finding the walls of your cage.
Basically, chaney, the 'first cause' is a lousy argument for creator gods in the first place, and it wouldn't indicate your particular God in the second place. And it has nothing to with the spiritual needs of mankind so it pointless in the third place.
Well, it is scary to contemplate infinity so maybe the 'first cause' thing does provide some protection.