[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Spot on…
The neo-atheist now rely and untenable, and flat illogical positions to support their beliefs.
God didn’t make the universe it just happened. ← Yeah right. Not only is it a completely ridiculous, circular and therefore illogical proposition. It’s also arguing against a claim that doesn’t exist. Theists don’t claim ‘God poofed the universe into existence’. The theistic claim is that existence cannot come from non-existence. “The Universe” is technically an irrelevant point from which to argue. For instance, to claim to find the ‘cause’ of this universe, you only kick the can down the road as to what created that.
The atheist then claims “What created God” which is another ridiculous proposition because, by very definition, God cannot be caused or he wouldn’t be God. The Uncaused-cause cannot be caused or it’s not and Uncaused-cause.
The other other neo-atheist delusion is moral relativity. Giving up the notion that that morality has it’s based in metaphysics seems to trip them up in to thinking that automatically means God exists. That’s their flying leap not ours, morality is something other than God, not God himself. But if they give up that morality isn’t relative, then they leave a foot in the door for God. So they try to shut the door with another illogical position.
Third, and this is really a new one on me, is the flat denial of metaphysics itself. That’s just a flat denial of reality and that makes me just laugh. [/quote]
Pat, what’s your take on this one from Carl Sagan? The intro sucks, if you click it, it should bypass it.
[/quote]
I respected Carl Sagan as scientist who made these important questions part of part of our popular culture. But this video, is amateur hour for him I am afraid. I actually addressed it in the above post and the answer actually came centuries ago. Carl Sagan in this instance is talking in temporal terms which is a fatal mistake. Understanding the space time continuum as we do now, the propositions he makes, make no sense. What happened before the universe? Well since time is a function of physical matter moving and changing, there was no time and hence no ‘before’. And again he is arguing against a position that is not the theist take. Speaking more philosophically, God is the Uncaused-cause, so we will refer to him as that for the purpose of this conversation. The theistic argument is that there is existence, and there is a reason for this existence. That’s it. So it invalidates any counter-arguments about eternal universe, accordion universe, or multiverses. It doesn’t matter what it is that exists, all is has to do, is exist. Looking at causation from a perspective of dependence or reason, takes time out of the equation.
The arguement, and I am paraphrasing, breaks down like this. We know there is existence (whether we know anything about it really doesn’t matter, something exists whether we are delusional about it or not is irrelevant). We know that nothingness, true nothingness is completely void of any properties, it literally doesn’t exist. I am not talking about a vacuum, or a viod, or anything like that because as ‘empty’ as they seem, they are still things. I am talking about a pure lack of existence. That which is not can do nothing and is nothing so it cannot be depended on for anything. Nothing cannot do something.
What we are left with is what we call the ‘causal chain’. There are may ‘forms’ of causation, but at it’s core is that causes necesitate their effects, be it linear (A therefore B), or dependence (B because of A, or B as a function of A).
Not reversing the causal chain is a reductive process. As you reduce, you remove properties as you remove properties, you either end up with something or nothing, but we already know, there is no such thing a ‘nothing’. So it has to be something. We cannot say this regression goes on forever because infinite regress is logically impossible because it begs the question, it becomes circular is therefore false. In an infinite regress, you enviably end up with a ‘thing’ being a function of itself. For instance, a pencil isn’t just a pencil, because it’s a pencil. That is blatantly false.
So we have a problem where you break down existence to it’s core, it could not have come from nothing and it cannot go on forever. There is only one solution to the problem. The uncaused-cause. Something that sit’s outside the causal chain that on which everything can find it’s core ‘reason’ or dependence. It’s the only logical solution to the problem. There is no other solution. The answer is arrived at deductively and that makes it absolute.
You (not meaning you specifically) cannot argue against the fact that there is existence, you cannot argue that it is a function of itself and you cannot argue that the conclusion is false because the premises demand it’s true.
As to what caused the Uncaused-cause, is an improper question in that by definition, it couldn’t be caused, otherwise it wouldn’t be uncaused. It’s like asking what color is blue. It a resonable question because what IT is already answer that. That which is uncaused, cannot be caused, so the question itself is flawed…
Hope that made some kind of sense. It’s perfectly clear in my head. 
