 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > The Truth | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/14/2007 12:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | Yeah, I was taking him to mean logical necessity. If we are instead talking about intelligent design, I'd say to my knowledge there is no proof of a creator God to be found in the natural sciences, but there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence which makes the hypothesis the frontrunner (in my opinion). If we are talking about a first cause, I think the whole argument based on "from nothing, nothing comes" is circular. How do we know that "from nothing, nothing comes?" Because we say so? Of course if we assume universal causality, then there must have been a cause for this world, but why must we assume universal causality? And if we do assume universal causality, we must then say that the God of the Bible was caused by something prior. The idea of an unmoved mover is in direct contradiction to the idea of universal causality; at least one must be denied if we are to be logically consistent. If we say that God is the exception to the rule of cause-and-effect, then why can't there be more exceptions? The only way to keep together the "from nothing, nothing comes" argument is to say that there is one and only one unmoved mover. This is a premise based on nothing but the desire to make the argument work. Valid, but we cannot declare it sound.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/14/2007 1:08:33 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/14/2007 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | To say that from nothing, nothing comes, is just another way of saying all change is caused. Since coming into existence is a change, it must be caused, per that premise. Granted, the premise may be false. But if things can pop into existence without a cause with all of their attributes, I don't see how one could argue for ID. Or anything for that matter.
I forget how Lewis described it in Miracles, but it seems that if there is no such truth as "events are effects" (i.e., events require causes), then how do we go further and say valid conclusions require valid premises. The latter is a species of the former, to my mind. The only thing we could know is that we exist and have subjective experience.
We could not legitimately or competently infer any non-ego reality if our categories, like causality, are false. This is why I always say that we must posit as true those virtually universal categories that seem to be foundational to the validity of human thought. Otherwise, we have no basis to argue anything. How would we even know how to talk about exceptions vs. rules, for example, if our categories don't correspond to an objective, non-ego reality?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 4/14/2007 5:56:27 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/15/2007 12:30 AM (GMT -6) | | I admit I didn't catch the idea that it was only change and not being which is addressed in the unmoved mover idea. Still, I don't think we can know the argument to be sound.
"The way I understand it, if our categories are not valid as categories, then I don't know what it means to be intellectually honest. Because I don't even know what it would mean to be intellectual in that case."
I'm not saying they are invalid. Many categorizations, as well as the idea of categorization, are perfectly valid (both in the logical and colloquial sense of the word). In having this conversation I acknowledge that I am assuming certain unprovable premises such as 'you exist' and 'we can understand each other to a significant degree.' I could be wrong about these things. There is no provable foundation upon which to build a sound argument for these claims.
"What would constitute a ground for saying that a particular event/change is not caused, for example?"
There is no 100% proof that any event/change is uncaused. If what you mean by 'ground' is something like sound argument, there is no such ground.
"You are saying, in effect, that you know there are exceptions to causality."
I am saying no such thing. Perhaps God has never come into being in such a way as would constitute an event or change. In fact this is what I believe. But perhaps I'm wrong. It is possible that something comes from nothing. I'm not saying that I know this to have happened. I'm just saying you can't know that it hasn't (assuming that you and I exist and that my appearance corresponds to reality etc.)
By all means, let's agree that God exists and always has. But by claiming that this is the only rational position in the debate on the existence of God, we may comfort ourselves, but we make our more important claims about Jesus easy to dismiss by association.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/15/2007 12:40:58 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/15/2007 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:04 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|