About Belief, Religion and God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

If life arising was truly inevitable then other planets and other solar systems surely could have given birth to some form of life. Think about when scientists study other planets they are looking for life in the form of micro organisms not giant green monsters with tentacles and laser beams for eyes and fangs and (oh oops, I got carried away). Anyway, we are not even unique in having life on our own planet yet other planets don’t even have the most basic forms of bacteria or single celled organisms. The idea that all life arose from the same single celled organism has almost completely been discredited as evidence suggests that other life sprang up that was not at all related to other living creatures. Therefore, we would have to assume that spontaneous generation happened on earth not only once but probably millions of times. If that were so then it would also make sense that spontaneous generation was still happening on earth. [/quote]

…you’re talking about the planets in our solar system, right? That’s limiting the search for extraterrestrial life quite a bit, don’t you think? Can you provide a credible link to research that discredits single cell origins of life? Can you explain what spontaneous generation has to do with what we were talking about?[/quote]

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/questions/life.html

Here are two links I found. I’m sure though if you typed in “proof of extraterrestrial life” you could find arguments for it. Both articles leave the possibility for single-celled organisms and for even multi-celled organisms but puts the latter in high doubt. I never said there couldn’t be multi-celled organisms. Earlier I stated that unless we found a higher form of life comparable to humans that it wouldn’t really change anything. The earth is full of multi-celled organisms (cats, dogs, dolphins, monkeys, etc.) that have nothing to do with God’s plan for salvation.

The reason I brought up spontaneous generation is because something had to have sparked life on our planet. Not just once, but virtually millions of times. It was always thought that all life originated from the same uni-cellular organisms, but we have examples like in the Cambrian Explosion where new life appeared without having evolved from other species.

502

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…does that mean you’re open to the idea that life isn’t limited to us on Earth?

[i’m off to bed. See you tomorrow][/quote]

There is always a possibility that there may be life somewhere. Afterall, the universe far more expansive than we can really ever calculate since it’s always expanding. [/quote]

…if we do find [some kind of] life out there, wouldn’t it mean that the bible is a bronze age interpretation of our existence by the standards of that time, instead of the inerrant word of God?[/quote]

If we find life on another planet, and that would be a big IF, it would really have no implications unless it was mutli cellular, self aware, complex beings as ourselves. It would not necessarily discount the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that human beings are God’s most precious creation. Does that mean that he could have created other equal life forms and not cared as much about them? There is no definitive answer to this question. The most reasonable explanation is that there is no other intelligent life in the universe. If we think about the fact that we live on a planet that is actually conducive to life, something we have not found elsewhere, and we are the only intelligent life on this planet, it means that it has to be very doubtful that there was intelligent life on another planet. If we find uni-cellular life or even more simple multi-cellular life (i.e. mammals, reptiles, etc.), it would really hold no implications to the Bible. Afterall, there are multitudes of animals on this planet and God only has a plan for one, humans.[/quote]

…there are definitly animals on this planet who are more intelligent than some humans! But i can’t refute your circular logic, and i don’t want to. I accept your opinion. Thanks…[/quote]

Very true. I’ve worked with and taught the children of some people that probably would lose at scrabble to a chicken. It’s been my pleasure discussing it with you.

503

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

If life arising was truly inevitable then other planets and other solar systems surely could have given birth to some form of life. Think about when scientists study other planets they are looking for life in the form of micro organisms not giant green monsters with tentacles and laser beams for eyes and fangs and (oh oops, I got carried away). Anyway, we are not even unique in having life on our own planet yet other planets don’t even have the most basic forms of bacteria or single celled organisms. The idea that all life arose from the same single celled organism has almost completely been discredited as evidence suggests that other life sprang up that was not at all related to other living creatures. Therefore, we would have to assume that spontaneous generation happened on earth not only once but probably millions of times. If that were so then it would also make sense that spontaneous generation was still happening on earth. [/quote]

…you’re talking about the planets in our solar system, right? That’s limiting the search for extraterrestrial life quite a bit, don’t you think? Can you provide a credible link to research that discredits single cell origins of life? Can you explain what spontaneous generation has to do with what we were talking about?[/quote]

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/questions/life.html

Here are two links I found. I’m sure though if you typed in “proof of extraterrestrial life” you could find arguments for it. Both articles leave the possibility for single-celled organisms and for even multi-celled organisms but puts the latter in high doubt. I never said there couldn’t be multi-celled organisms. Earlier I stated that unless we found a higher form of life comparable to humans that it wouldn’t really change anything. The earth is full of multi-celled organisms (cats, dogs, dolphins, monkeys, etc.) that have nothing to do with God’s plan for salvation.

The reason I brought up spontaneous generation is because something had to have sparked life on our planet. Not just once, but virtually millions of times. It was always thought that all life originated from the same uni-cellular organisms, but we have examples like in the Cambrian Explosion where new life appeared without having evolved from other species.[/quote]

…thanks for clarifying that, i wasn’t sure what you meant. It stand to reason though that, if life can arise from single cell organisms, it can do that over and over again. If anything, the conditions for life forming out of proteins and amino acids are even better when there’s already biological matter floating around. So obviously i can’t agree with you on it being an indication of some sort…

504

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

If life arising was truly inevitable then other planets and other solar systems surely could have given birth to some form of life. Think about when scientists study other planets they are looking for life in the form of micro organisms not giant green monsters with tentacles and laser beams for eyes and fangs and (oh oops, I got carried away). Anyway, we are not even unique in having life on our own planet yet other planets don’t even have the most basic forms of bacteria or single celled organisms. The idea that all life arose from the same single celled organism has almost completely been discredited as evidence suggests that other life sprang up that was not at all related to other living creatures. Therefore, we would have to assume that spontaneous generation happened on earth not only once but probably millions of times. If that were so then it would also make sense that spontaneous generation was still happening on earth. [/quote]

…you’re talking about the planets in our solar system, right? That’s limiting the search for extraterrestrial life quite a bit, don’t you think? Can you provide a credible link to research that discredits single cell origins of life? Can you explain what spontaneous generation has to do with what we were talking about?[/quote]

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/questions/life.html

Here are two links I found. I’m sure though if you typed in “proof of extraterrestrial life” you could find arguments for it. Both articles leave the possibility for single-celled organisms and for even multi-celled organisms but puts the latter in high doubt. I never said there couldn’t be multi-celled organisms. Earlier I stated that unless we found a higher form of life comparable to humans that it wouldn’t really change anything. The earth is full of multi-celled organisms (cats, dogs, dolphins, monkeys, etc.) that have nothing to do with God’s plan for salvation.

The reason I brought up spontaneous generation is because something had to have sparked life on our planet. Not just once, but virtually millions of times. It was always thought that all life originated from the same uni-cellular organisms, but we have examples like in the Cambrian Explosion where new life appeared without having evolved from other species.[/quote]

…thanks for clarifying that, i wasn’t sure what you meant. It stand to reason though that, if life can arise from single cell organisms, it can do that over and over again. If anything, the conditions for life forming out of proteins and amino acids are even better when there’s already biological matter floating around. So obviously i can’t agree with you on it being an indication of some sort…[/quote]

It’s definitely a point of debate from both sides of the coin. The Cambrian Explosion is probably the most interesting time period. The creationists point to the fact that you had a virtual explosion of previously unknown life which would have happened much to quickly for evolution. Meanwhile the evolutionists point to, well, like you said; it would very easy for life to have split off from previously existing life. Kind of like how heated the debates about fullbody vs. split routines get on here.

505

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…thanks for clarifying that, i wasn’t sure what you meant. It stand to reason though that, if life can arise from single cell organisms, it can do that over and over again. If anything, the conditions for life forming out of proteins and amino acids are even better when there’s already biological matter floating around. So obviously i can’t agree with you on it being an indication of some sort…[/quote]

It’s definitely a point of debate from both sides of the coin. The Cambrian Explosion is probably the most interesting time period. The creationists point to the fact that you had a virtual explosion of previously unknown life which would have happened much to quickly for evolution. Meanwhile the evolutionists point to, well, like you said; it would very easy for life to have split off from previously existing life. Kind of like how heated the debates about fullbody vs. split routines get on here.[/quote]

…true. We simply deal with [the lack of] answers differently. I guess that’s the lesson for today (:

506

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…thanks for clarifying that, i wasn’t sure what you meant. It stand to reason though that, if life can arise from single cell organisms, it can do that over and over again. If anything, the conditions for life forming out of proteins and amino acids are even better when there’s already biological matter floating around. So obviously i can’t agree with you on it being an indication of some sort…[/quote]

It’s definitely a point of debate from both sides of the coin. The Cambrian Explosion is probably the most interesting time period. The creationists point to the fact that you had a virtual explosion of previously unknown life which would have happened much to quickly for evolution. Meanwhile the evolutionists point to, well, like you said; it would very easy for life to have split off from previously existing life. Kind of like how heated the debates about fullbody vs. split routines get on here.[/quote]

…true. We simply deal with [the lack of] answers differently. I guess that’s the lesson for today (:[/quote]

It’s amazing how much more can be accomplished by true discussion rather than heated debate. I always tell other Christians that it is only our job to witness and share faith not to convert. That is ultimately left up to God. Afterall, thousands witnessed the teachings and workings of Jesus himself and didn’t believe he was who he said he was. I don’t see how I possibly stand a chance of convincing everyone vs. him. It’s just basically our job to be God’s ambassadors not his secret agents hoping to never blow our cover or reveal our secret. Hope to hear more from you today.

507

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the assertion by deists and religious people that [a] God is the first cause, in all it’s antropomorphic glory, may sooth the not-so critical thinker, but i will always feel insincere; trying to convince myself of something that, ultimately, is a lie to me. If this first cause exists, it’s irrelevant to everyday life and existence, imo…
[/quote]

How is this a not-so critical thought process? If anything it is logic at it’s greatest simplicity. Knowing for sure is the problem, but the logic is a rock solid as it gets. To say the cosmological argument is wrong, you have to either accept circular reasoning as a possibility, which is bone-headed, though some have tried. Or the more common approach is to break apart causality. In other words, that causes do not necessitate. That’s a far more interesting approach. However, if somebody were to succeed in such an argument, it would not only effect religion, it would murder science, because results could not ever be trusted.

508

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…there are definitly animals on this planet who are more intelligent than some humans! But i can’t refute your circular logic, and i don’t want to. I accept your opinion. Thanks…[/quote]

Can’t agree more, look at Nasty Pelosi…I actually believe in my heart that dog shit is smarter than she is.

509

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…the assertion by deists and religious people that [a] God is the first cause, in all it’s antropomorphic glory, may sooth the not-so critical thinker, but i will always feel insincere; trying to convince myself of something that, ultimately, is a lie to me. If this first cause exists, it’s irrelevant to everyday life and existence, imo…
[/quote]

How is this a not-so critical thought process? If anything it is logic at it’s greatest simplicity. Knowing for sure is the problem, but the logic is a rock solid as it gets. To say the cosmological argument is wrong, you have to either accept circular reasoning as a possibility, which is bone-headed, though some have tried. Or the more common approach is to break apart causality. In other words, that causes do not necessitate. That’s a far more interesting approach. However, if somebody were to succeed in such an argument, it would not only effect religion, it would murder science, because results could not ever be trusted.[/quote]

…it’s not-so critical thinking because you accept a solution to an otherwise unknowable position, e.i. God, as truth, and for many it ends there. These beliefs may also form the basis for more ludicrous beliefs like young earth creationism and mormons. To make things worse, believers then to look up to their leaders, and if these leaders are charismatic, which they usually are, much of what they say is gospel to their followers…

…much of this keeps coming back to institutionalized religion and not the individual believer, please keep that in mind…

510

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…it’s not-so critical thinking because you accept a solution to an otherwise unknowable position, e.i. God, as truth, and for many it ends there. These beliefs may also form the basis for more ludicrous beliefs like young earth creationism and mormons. To make things worse, believers then to look up to their leaders, and if these leaders are charismatic, which they usually are, much of what they say is gospel to their followers…

…much of this keeps coming back to institutionalized religion and not the individual believer, please keep that in mind…
[/quote]

I don’t “accept a solution” the argument solves a problem; that’s what good arguments do. Bad arguments are false or opened and do not solve the problem… If you do not think it does find the flaw with it. The solution is perfectly reasonable, hell it mathematical. It leads to none of the things you assert. All it does is establish that for something to be a “first-cause” it must by necessity have certain properties. What can er derive from the argument? Well an uncaused cause cannot be caused by anything else, otherwise it would not be an uncaused-cause. It must exist infinitely otherwise it would have had to have been caused. To cause and not be caused it must have had a motivating factor, like a will, from with in itself. For something to be able to will, it must have consciousness, etc. These are attributes that people would associate with God. There for the logical assumption is that what people call “God” and the uncaused-cause are one in the same.
This is as critically though out as it gets. It’s linear, the premises lead to one another, and the conclusions can be drawn directly and logically from it’s premises. If you disagree with the argument, then you must find what is wrong with it. Saying it’s “not critical thinking” is just plain wrong. If logical purity, if a priori deduction isn’t critical thinking, then I am stumped, what is?

The argument is what it is, if you think there is something wrong with it then establish a counter argument that would refute it.

How religions use God is incumbent on first believing He exists, otherwise it’s a waste of time.

511

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…it’s not-so critical thinking because you accept a solution to an otherwise unknowable position, e.i. God, as truth, and for many it ends there. These beliefs may also form the basis for more ludicrous beliefs like young earth creationism and mormons. To make things worse, believers then to look up to their leaders, and if these leaders are charismatic, which they usually are, much of what they say is gospel to their followers…

…much of this keeps coming back to institutionalized religion and not the individual believer, please keep that in mind…
[/quote]

I don’t “accept a solution” the argument solves a problem; that’s what good arguments do. Bad arguments are false or opened and do not solve the problem… If you do not think it does find the flaw with it. The solution is perfectly reasonable, hell it mathematical. It leads to none of the things you assert. All it does is establish that for something to be a “first-cause” it must by necessity have certain properties. What can er derive from the argument? Well an uncaused cause cannot be caused by anything else, otherwise it would not be an uncaused-cause. It must exist infinitely otherwise it would have had to have been caused. To cause and not be caused it must have had a motivating factor, like a will, from with in itself. For something to be able to will, it must have consciousness, etc. These are attributes that people would associate with God. There for the logical assumption is that what people call “God” and the uncaused-cause are one in the same.
This is as critically though out as it gets. It’s linear, the premises lead to one another, and the conclusions can be drawn directly and logically from it’s premises. If you disagree with the argument, then you must find what is wrong with it. Saying it’s “not critical thinking” is just plain wrong. If logical purity, if a priori deduction isn’t critical thinking, then I am stumped, what is?

The argument is what it is, if you think there is something wrong with it then establish a counter argument that would refute it.

How religions use God is incumbent on first believing He exists, otherwise it’s a waste of time. [/quote]

…starting out with an assumption and then fit the “evidence” of logic in the equation is simply bad reasoning. For the sake of argument let’s say that there is indeed a first cause; on what basis could you ever define that cause?

…what we know of reality does not suggest an intelligent designer, but let’s avoid that discussion alltogether, nothing good can come of it grin. So where do you draw the line between a reasonable assumption and filling-in the gaps?

512

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…thanks for clarifying that, i wasn’t sure what you meant. It stand to reason though that, if life can arise from single cell organisms, it can do that over and over again. If anything, the conditions for life forming out of proteins and amino acids are even better when there’s already biological matter floating around. So obviously i can’t agree with you on it being an indication of some sort…[/quote]

It’s definitely a point of debate from both sides of the coin. The Cambrian Explosion is probably the most interesting time period. The creationists point to the fact that you had a virtual explosion of previously unknown life which would have happened much to quickly for evolution. Meanwhile the evolutionists point to, well, like you said; it would very easy for life to have split off from previously existing life. Kind of like how heated the debates about fullbody vs. split routines get on here.[/quote]

…true. We simply deal with [the lack of] answers differently. I guess that’s the lesson for today (:[/quote]

It’s amazing how much more can be accomplished by true discussion rather than heated debate. I always tell other Christians that it is only our job to witness and share faith not to convert. That is ultimately left up to God. Afterall, thousands witnessed the teachings and workings of Jesus himself and didn’t believe he was who he said he was. I don’t see how I possibly stand a chance of convincing everyone vs. him. It’s just basically our job to be God’s ambassadors not his secret agents hoping to never blow our cover or reveal our secret. Hope to hear more from you today. [/quote]

…my sentiments exactly!

513

…a bit sappy at times, but one of your atheist countrymen conveys some of my sentiments pretty darn good:

514

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…it’s not-so critical thinking because you accept a solution to an otherwise unknowable position, e.i. God, as truth, and for many it ends there. These beliefs may also form the basis for more ludicrous beliefs like young earth creationism and mormons. To make things worse, believers then to look up to their leaders, and if these leaders are charismatic, which they usually are, much of what they say is gospel to their followers…

…much of this keeps coming back to institutionalized religion and not the individual believer, please keep that in mind…
[/quote]

I don’t “accept a solution” the argument solves a problem; that’s what good arguments do. Bad arguments are false or opened and do not solve the problem… If you do not think it does find the flaw with it. The solution is perfectly reasonable, hell it mathematical. It leads to none of the things you assert. All it does is establish that for something to be a “first-cause” it must by necessity have certain properties. What can er derive from the argument? Well an uncaused cause cannot be caused by anything else, otherwise it would not be an uncaused-cause. It must exist infinitely otherwise it would have had to have been caused. To cause and not be caused it must have had a motivating factor, like a will, from with in itself. For something to be able to will, it must have consciousness, etc. These are attributes that people would associate with God. There for the logical assumption is that what people call “God” and the uncaused-cause are one in the same.
This is as critically though out as it gets. It’s linear, the premises lead to one another, and the conclusions can be drawn directly and logically from it’s premises. If you disagree with the argument, then you must find what is wrong with it. Saying it’s “not critical thinking” is just plain wrong. If logical purity, if a priori deduction isn’t critical thinking, then I am stumped, what is?

The argument is what it is, if you think there is something wrong with it then establish a counter argument that would refute it.

How religions use God is incumbent on first believing He exists, otherwise it’s a waste of time. [/quote]

…starting out with an assumption and then fit the “evidence” of logic in the equation is simply bad reasoning. For the sake of argument let’s say that there is indeed a first cause; on what basis could you ever define that cause?
[/quote]
Uh, did you read the argument? That’s not how it works…Besides, the dude. Aristotle, who originated the argument had no previous exposure to monotheistic religions, he concluded this based on pure reasoning. Second, it really wouldn’t matter if the conclusion were first. The argument itself is flawless. The only thing you can argue against are whether or not the premises are true.

If you are going to argue that the cosmological style is false you are going to have to be specific as to where and how. This argument has lasted a couple of melinia unrefuted. Even the most astute atheist philosopher acknowledge it’s logical quality. What they find fault with is the validity of the premises. It’s pretty well established that the it is a good argument. It has premises that are valid and plausible, one premise leads to the next cleanly, and they lead to the conclusion directly.
Even if the conclusion were drawne first the argument still stands until proven invalid. There was no shoe-horning of premises here. It fits together neatly.
I’ll give you a hand, most atheists argue the merits of the cause and effect relationship. Some say causes don’t necessitate their effects. Others say it’s an illusion. Feel free to come up with your own…However, if you are going attempt to pick apart the argument itself, be specific.

[quote]
…what we know of reality does not suggest an intelligent designer, but let’s avoid that discussion alltogether, nothing good can come of it grin. So where do you draw the line between a reasonable assumption and filling-in the gaps?[/quote]

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

515

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t “accept a solution” the argument solves a problem; that’s what good arguments do. Bad arguments are false or opened and do not solve the problem… If you do not think it does find the flaw with it. The solution is perfectly reasonable, hell it mathematical. It leads to none of the things you assert. All it does is establish that for something to be a “first-cause” it must by necessity have certain properties. What can er derive from the argument? Well an uncaused cause cannot be caused by anything else, otherwise it would not be an uncaused-cause. It must exist infinitely otherwise it would have had to have been caused. To cause and not be caused it must have had a motivating factor, like a will, from with in itself. For something to be able to will, it must have consciousness, etc. These are attributes that people would associate with God. There for the logical assumption is that what people call “God” and the uncaused-cause are one in the same.
This is as critically though out as it gets. It’s linear, the premises lead to one another, and the conclusions can be drawn directly and logically from it’s premises. If you disagree with the argument, then you must find what is wrong with it. Saying it’s “not critical thinking” is just plain wrong. If logical purity, if a priori deduction isn’t critical thinking, then I am stumped, what is?

The argument is what it is, if you think there is something wrong with it then establish a counter argument that would refute it.

How religions use God is incumbent on first believing He exists, otherwise it’s a waste of time. [/quote]

…starting out with an assumption and then fit the “evidence” of logic in the equation is simply bad reasoning. For the sake of argument let’s say that there is indeed a first cause; on what basis could you ever define that cause?
[/quote]
Uh, did you read the argument? That’s not how it works…Besides, the dude. Aristotle, who originated the argument had no previous exposure to monotheistic religions, he concluded this based on pure reasoning. Second, it really wouldn’t matter if the conclusion were first. The argument itself is flawless. The only thing you can argue against are whether or not the premises are true.

If you are going to argue that the cosmological style is false you are going to have to be specific as to where and how. This argument has lasted a couple of melinia unrefuted. Even the most astute atheist philosopher acknowledge it’s logical quality. What they find fault with is the validity of the premises. It’s pretty well established that the it is a good argument. It has premises that are valid and plausible, one premise leads to the next cleanly, and they lead to the conclusion directly.
Even if the conclusion were drawne first the argument still stands until proven invalid. There was no shoe-horning of premises here. It fits together neatly.
I’ll give you a hand, most atheists argue the merits of the cause and effect relationship. Some say causes don’t necessitate their effects. Others say it’s an illusion. Feel free to come up with your own…However, if you are going attempt to pick apart the argument itself, be specific.

[quote]
…what we know of reality does not suggest an intelligent designer, but let’s avoid that discussion alltogether, nothing good can come of it grin. So where do you draw the line between a reasonable assumption and filling-in the gaps?[/quote]

I am not sure what you are getting at here. [/quote]

…i’m sorry, i got stuck on your last sentence there. Let me try again:

Even if there is an uncaused cause, because the assumption is that you cannot regress infinitly, there’s no reason to assume this first cause is intelligent.

Let’s assume you can regress infinitly, then there’s no need for a first cause, is there?

What if the first cause is the Big Bang; a singularity where space/time folds back onto itself in an eternal moment before expanding? The emptiness that binds?

Furthermore, Aristotle didn’t know that something can come from nothing; like subatomic particles appearing and disappearing in the vacuum of space [which isn’t really a vacuum].

I doubt this satisfies you, but what are the implications if there is a first uncaused cause?

Nothing can be said about it. Nothing can be known about it. That is what i meant by “filling in the gaps”. Where do you draw the line? When do you say, “I don’t know”, and start to accept culturally influenced beliefstructures as [absolute] truth?

516

Hillbilly Atheist presentation on Atheism

517

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t “accept a solution” the argument solves a problem; that’s what good arguments do. Bad arguments are false or opened and do not solve the problem… If you do not think it does find the flaw with it. The solution is perfectly reasonable, hell it mathematical. It leads to none of the things you assert. All it does is establish that for something to be a “first-cause” it must by necessity have certain properties. What can er derive from the argument? Well an uncaused cause cannot be caused by anything else, otherwise it would not be an uncaused-cause. It must exist infinitely otherwise it would have had to have been caused. To cause and not be caused it must have had a motivating factor, like a will, from with in itself. For something to be able to will, it must have consciousness, etc. These are attributes that people would associate with God. There for the logical assumption is that what people call “God” and the uncaused-cause are one in the same.
This is as critically though out as it gets. It’s linear, the premises lead to one another, and the conclusions can be drawn directly and logically from it’s premises. If you disagree with the argument, then you must find what is wrong with it. Saying it’s “not critical thinking” is just plain wrong. If logical purity, if a priori deduction isn’t critical thinking, then I am stumped, what is?

The argument is what it is, if you think there is something wrong with it then establish a counter argument that would refute it.

How religions use God is incumbent on first believing He exists, otherwise it’s a waste of time. [/quote]

…starting out with an assumption and then fit the “evidence” of logic in the equation is simply bad reasoning. For the sake of argument let’s say that there is indeed a first cause; on what basis could you ever define that cause?
[/quote]
Uh, did you read the argument? That’s not how it works…Besides, the dude. Aristotle, who originated the argument had no previous exposure to monotheistic religions, he concluded this based on pure reasoning. Second, it really wouldn’t matter if the conclusion were first. The argument itself is flawless. The only thing you can argue against are whether or not the premises are true.

If you are going to argue that the cosmological style is false you are going to have to be specific as to where and how. This argument has lasted a couple of melinia unrefuted. Even the most astute atheist philosopher acknowledge it’s logical quality. What they find fault with is the validity of the premises. It’s pretty well established that the it is a good argument. It has premises that are valid and plausible, one premise leads to the next cleanly, and they lead to the conclusion directly.
Even if the conclusion were drawne first the argument still stands until proven invalid. There was no shoe-horning of premises here. It fits together neatly.
I’ll give you a hand, most atheists argue the merits of the cause and effect relationship. Some say causes don’t necessitate their effects. Others say it’s an illusion. Feel free to come up with your own…However, if you are going attempt to pick apart the argument itself, be specific.

You cannot draw a conclusion from an infinite amount of premises. Secondly, it always lead to circular reasoning. You cannot support a conclusion with itself. Here’s a better explanation.

Ok, but you can’t. I prefer uncaused-cause…First cause assumes time and time is not a factor other than a beginning premise.

The big bang would have been a resultant effect of a cause. The uncaused-cause sits outside the causal chain, there fore cannot be acted upon.

Uh, something cannot come from nothing. A point you yourself argued when I said that’s what atheists believe. Not knowing the origin of something isn’t the same as it not having a cause.

The conclusion itself leads to knowledge about it. Think about what an uncaused-cause would have to be. First, it could not be bound by time and is therefore infinite. It cannot be created or destroyed. To initiate a cause and not be caused itself, indicates an act of will, which is a symptom of consciousness. That does not mean necessarily it has consciousness, but the inference can be drawn without a stretch.

518

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Hillbilly Atheist presentation on Atheism

Cute, but unsatisfying. Nothing I haven’t heard like a trillion times…He suffers from the same issues most athiests have, 1) is the problem of evil. 2) is giving up on origin. Saying the universe was always here doesn’t solve the problem of contingency. Light is infinite too, but it originates from sources all around the universe. There is nothing in the universe whose existence isn’t contingent upon something else, period…I said nothing. If you find it, you’ve found God.

519

[quote]pat wrote:

You cannot draw a conclusion from an infinite amount of premises. Secondly, it always lead to circular reasoning. You cannot support a conclusion with itself. Here’s a better explanation.

http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2009/02/proof-of-infinite-regressions-fallacy.html[/quote]

…my reading comprehension skills must be lacking, or you read me wrong. If there is a finite regression, what reason is there to assume the uncaused cause is intelligent?

[quote]
Let’s assume you can regress infinitly, then there’s no need for a first cause, is there?

Ok, but you can’t. I prefer uncaused-cause…First cause assumes time and time is not a factor other than a beginning premise.[/quote]

…until the LHC shows us the answer, i present to you the Mandelbrot fractal: Mandelbrot set - Wikipedia a way to visualise infinity, which doesn’t add to my point, but it’s cool…

[quote]
What if the first cause is the Big Bang; a singularity where space/time folds back onto itself in an eternal moment before expanding? The emptiness that binds?

The big bang would have been a resultant effect of a cause. The uncaused-cause sits outside the causal chain, there fore cannot be acted upon.[/quote]

…as long as we’re in the realm of conjecture, at the stage of singularity there’s no reason to assume the Big Bang [the universe] causes itself. The singularity sits outside of the causal chain, outside of time and space. This is why scientist can’t say anything about what was prior to the Big Bang, because time and space and the laws of physics don’t apply. Quite elegant, if i say so myself…

[quote]
Furthermore, Aristotle didn’t know that something can come from nothing; like subatomic particles appearing and disappearing in the vacuum of space [which isn’t really a vacuum].

Uh, something cannot come from nothing. A point you yourself argued when I said that’s what atheists believe. Not knowing the origin of something isn’t the same as it not having a cause.[/quote]

…i don’t recall saying that, tbh…

[quote]
I doubt this satisfies you, but what are the implications if there is a first uncaused cause?

Nothing can be said about it. Nothing can be known about it. That is what i meant by “filling in the gaps”. Where do you draw the line? When do you say, “I don’t know”, and start to accept culturally influenced belief structures as [absolute] truth?

The conclusion itself leads to knowledge about it. Think about what an uncaused-cause would have to be. First, it could not be bound by time and is therefore infinite. It cannot be created or destroyed. To initiate a cause and not be caused itself, indicates an act of will, which is a symptom of consciousness. That does not mean necessarily it has consciousness, but the inference can be drawn without a stretch. [/quote]

…by definition we cannot know anything about it, because all we are able to know is bound by the limits of our existence. By your own admission, the uncaused cause must be outside this existence, so don’t confuse conjecture with knowledge…

520

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Hillbilly Atheist presentation on Atheism

Cute, but unsatisfying. Nothing I haven’t heard like a trillion times…He suffers from the same issues most athiests have, 1) is the problem of evil. 2) is giving up on origin. Saying the universe was always here doesn’t solve the problem of contingency. Light is infinite too, but it originates from sources all around the universe. There is nothing in the universe whose existence isn’t contingent upon something else, period…I said nothing. If you find it, you’ve found God.[/quote]

…the problem of evil is easily solved; there is no inherent evil or good, but merely a justification for behaviour we reject or award. Your other point we’re already dealing with…