Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 14 Dec 2015, 08:16 AM   #619738 / #51
Metacrock
Senior Member
 
Metacrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Blaise Pascal - Wikiquote
Quote:
FEU. Dieu d'Abraham, Dieu d'Isaac, Dieu de Jacob, non des philosophes et savants. Certitude. Certitude. Sentiment. Joie. Paix.
FIRE. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and scholars. Certainty. Certainty. Feeling. Joy. Peace.
Note on a parchment stitched to the lining of Pascal's coat, found by a servant shortly after his death, as quoted in Burkitt Speculum religionis (1929), p. 150
A "Ground of Being" or "Pure Being" god seems like the sort of god that he'd call the god of the philosophers and scholars.

As far as I can tell, most religious believers believe in anthropomorphic-superbeing sorts of deities, the sort of thing that Metacrock disparages as "big man in the sky" deities (and big woman ones, as the case may be). Or at least not the airy-fairy theologians' sorts of gods.
Most atheists have not read the science they claim to take comfort from. Or knowledge. So should we base science upon the half baked notions of those who haven't read it ?


It does not matter what anyone thinks, obey logic. If my argument wins then it proves my belief is warranted that's what you must deal with.
Metacrock is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 08:19 AM   #619739 / #52
Val
Futue te ipsum.
 
Val's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 5,809
Default

Nah, only those named Steve.
Val is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 08:19 AM   #619740 / #53
Metacrock
Senior Member
 
Metacrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plebian View Post
And, in case your masters degree in theology didn't teach you, when every one of your interlocutors comes up with their own way of pointing out the same problem, it probably means there is a contingency somewhere in there that either you or they haven't accounted for.
either that or that they don't know logic. you are all regurgitating things y0u got from the echo chamber.
Metacrock is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 08:23 AM   #619741 / #54
Val
Futue te ipsum.
 
Val's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 5,809
Default

Har har har har har har har

Did you know that quacks don't echo?
Val is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 08:23 AM   #619742 / #55
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,653
Default

Go on then Metacrock. Explain, using logic, why everything has to be contingent, except god.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 08:25 AM   #619743 / #56
Val
Futue te ipsum.
 
Val's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 5,809
Default

Because, in metacrock's case, logic is contingent

Fuck know what it's contingent on or with, but hey, that's his chosen word.
Val is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 08:35 AM   #619745 / #57
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,653
Default

Ok, let's use Venn diagrams.

ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 08:55 AM   #619746 / #58
Metacrock
Senior Member
 
Metacrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Soul View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Soul View Post
You argument is watertight. But that's because it's circular.
show me, how?
All contingencies have causes. All natural things are contingent. The universe is natural, therefore it is contingent. Because it is contingent, it must have a cause, since all contingencies have causes. Therefore, the universe is caused.
that's not circular. It's totally linear.

1. All contingencies have causes.

2.All natural things are contingent.

no 2 is derived from no 1. because all contingent things have causes they are contingent. contingent means to have a cause. that is not circulars, it is not stated that natural things all have causes but it doesn't have to be stated. It's common knowledge.

3.The universe is natural, therefore it is contingent.


that's your basic modus ponens. 1 and 2 establish that universe is natural, it is cotangent. why? because it's made of causes.

modus ponens: if p then q, p therefore q;

if caused then contingent

U = cause therefore U = contingent.

no circle.


Quote:
Of course, a water filled balloon is water tight, but that doesnt mean it's imune to being popped like a pustule on the forehead of creationist thinking.
argument from analogy



Quote:
All you have to offer is a blackbox where any rule you apply fits nicely inside the blackbox. The most glaring issue is of course the special plea that the universe is natural but god is not. Nothing like invoking magic to make your black box work.
you are merely gainsaying the evidence. atheist logic is so convoluted and your brain washing ad stripped your ability to understand linear thinking: the concept of God is that of necessary being. that's the idea in which we believe.. you can't deny the right to defend a belief mere.ly because you don't hold it.

What you are really protesting is the fact that I don't privilege atheist assumptions. I already established why it's not logical to posit a caused ultimate origin (it wou8ld not be ultimate). you are merely whining because your belief system doesn't engender the privilege you need kit to have.

Quote:
This allows us to postulate an infinity of made-up stuff that caused the universe. Elves, tambourines and elephants, you name it. It's only because people anthropomorphise that traditional gods are human-like, therefor we have bearded gramps in the sky telling us not to wank or mix fibres. Oh, and sidekick Jesus, because having kids is what humans do. And his sidekick the holy spirit because invoking magic never goes out of style.
To the contrary. I already alluded to the fact that ICR is illogical and impossible. so no infinite string of causes will do. It has to be a final cause.

as for anthropomorphizing I said nothing of the kind. In a philosophical argument one is arguing for a place holder. We are a long way from filling it out.



Quote:
It's hillarious how religious fools have been forced to avoid talking about specific dogmas related to their specific religion and are now wielding a vague pseudo-intellectual cosmology in order to try and compete with real science. All of it misses the point of course, and the fallacy is asserting that anything must have a temporal cause. Once you start grokking the idea that causality is bound by time, and that time becomes meaningless as you approach the singularity of the big bang, then outmoded thinking about cause and effect throws the idea of a sky gramps on its head.
That really speaks to our logical abilities when you have to resort to name calling. that speaks so highly of your argument. I can/t discuss the "specific dogmas" because you wouldn't understand them and to the basic fact that God is obvious. you are so afraid of that reality you can't reason about it.


Quote:
This is intolerable for people who lack the imagination or humility to trancend the 3d world we live in in. The irony is devastating, since they rely on the attributes of the physical world to create their god gap.

Only the young, ignorant or irrational are taken in by this prevarication.
Translation: I am going stamp my little foot because you are better read than I am and Christians are supposed to be stupid; sorry I am not stupid enough for you to beat. Get used to it. If your views are really worth anything you should be able to beat my argument without name calling, or bluster. stand or fall by the logic.
Metacrock is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:00 AM   #619748 / #59
Metacrock
Senior Member
 
Metacrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Ok, let's use Venn diagrams.

none responsive. I see here's the point where they stop trying to win by logic and drop thye pretense of intelligence and just stat the mocking.
Metacrock is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:01 AM   #619749 / #60
Metacrock
Senior Member
 
Metacrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Soul View Post
Because, in metacrock's case, logic is contingent

Fuck know what it's contingent on or with, but hey, that's his chosen word.
thanks for your surrender. also thanks for giving me material for Atheist watch.

glad you know you lost
Metacrock is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:05 AM   #619750 / #61
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,653
Default

Go on then Metacrock. Explain, using logic, why everything has to be contingent, except god.

Is it because he's supposedly not natural?

A logical justification for supposing the existence of anything non-natural would be really useful to start with.

Then you can explain, using logic, or a non-circular argument, why non-natural stuff doesn't need to be contingent.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:07 AM   #619751 / #62
Val
Futue te ipsum.
 
Val's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 5,809
Default

Hey hey, athiest watch.

I'm about to get published, fellers!

Val is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:08 AM   #619752 / #63
Metacrock
Senior Member
 
Metacrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Go on then Metacrock. Explain, using logic, why everything has to be contingent, except god.
If you read the first page you woul know thyat zi did that.

the fact of contingent nature is empirical. we have no counter examples. but logically we can't go on with recession of causes indefinitely there has to be a point of stopping that's what we call God.

against infinite causal regression
Metacrock is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:09 AM   #619753 / #64
Metacrock
Senior Member
 
Metacrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Soul View Post
Hey hey, athiest watch.

I'm about to get published, fellers!

yes you are going to be famous, all the spambots in china will know your work.
Metacrock is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:10 AM   #619754 / #65
Metacrock
Senior Member
 
Metacrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Soul View Post
Har har har har har har har

Did you know that quacks don't echo?
show me the logic
Metacrock is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:11 AM   #619755 / #66
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Ok, let's use Venn diagrams.

none responsive. I see here's the point where they stop trying to win by logic and drop thye pretense of intelligence and just stat the mocking.
Sorry. I thought you would like that because of the circles.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:18 AM   #619756 / #67
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Go on then Metacrock. Explain, using logic, why everything has to be contingent, except god.
If you read the first page you woul know thyat zi did that.

the fact of contingent nature is empirical. we have no counter examples. but logically we can't go on with recession of causes indefinitely there has to be a point of stopping that's what we call God.

against infinite causal regression
Sorry, that doesn't seem to explain it. Why can't the first cause (if there needs to be one) be an elf?
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:24 AM   #619757 / #68
DMB
Old git
Beloved deceased
 
DMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mostly Switzerland
Posts: 41,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Go on then Metacrock. Explain, using logic, why everything has to be contingent, except god.
If you read the first page you woul know thyat zi did that.

the fact of contingent nature is empirical. we have no counter examples. but logically we can't go on with recession of causes indefinitely there has to be a point of stopping that's what we call God.

against infinite causal regression
I made the mistake of following that link and reading your stuff against infinite regress. All that I get from that is that the word "infinite" causes you some trouble.
DMB is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:34 AM   #619759 / #69
Metacrock
Senior Member
 
Metacrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
Nonsense. It's easy to assume that there never was any such being. Your "necessary cause" could just be a (Wikipedia)Higgs Field through with particles travel, causing local perturbations that cause the conditions of a "Big Bang" to develop. The rest is history. No need to invent a super-powerful, super-intelligent being that feels a need to create other beings to worship itself.
I'm sorry you don't know the terminology do you?, you are trying to disprove my argument and you don't know the basic parlance that all philosophers use. necessary doesn't mean you can't portend there's no God. it means first that God is not contingent upon anything else, secondly that if God is real then it's impossible that he could not be. In other words God is either on or off never maybe. one way to say that is God cannot cease or fail to be.
Quote:
No, I understand your terminology perfectly well, and I am not "pretending" that there is no God. That is the question we are debating. The problem is that you missed my point. A huge gaping hole in your argument is that 1-6 makes no mention of "God", so you have no basis for just slipping him into your conclusion with a wave of your hand.

I said up front I don't seek to prove God but to show belief in God is rationally warranted. The point here the argument stops shows that eternal necessity hsd to be the ultimate origin. That's the basic definition of God. maybe I do need to tweek it but that's a minor repair.

Quote:
The term "God" carries a great deal of baggage beyond just being a "necessary cause", and that extra baggage is what concerns people when they worship him and pray to him. A First Cause can be a completely natural phenomenon such as a glitch in (Wikipedia)quantum foam. You don't pray to quantum foam, do you?
not just cause but a necessary aspect of being. that phrase aspect tells you it's not just a big man in the sky


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

of course there is; God cannot cease or to be. part of being eternal.
By merely asserting that the "necessary cause" is eternal and then labeling it "God", you are begging the question. Those are in the conclusions you need to reach. They are not in your premises 1-6.[/quote]

(1) did more than just asserted it. I argued that ICR is impossible and ultimate origin can;t have a cause or it's not ultimate. now you must deal with that. that proves it must be eternal since uncaused.

(2) your argument really again boils down to anger because I'm not willing to grant you the privilege you give atheist assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
The reality is that deities are always imagined to be humanlike on some level, not just abstract "causes". People pray to them and expect their gods to want them to pray. God doesn't just create universes. He performs miracles, i.e. interacts with the universe in local time. He communicates with people--at least, you claim he has communicated with you. He responds to worship, sometimes answering prayers. Sometimes not. Depends on his mood.
I am arguing that God is real. quoting your position on that is not an argument. using your position to prove your position is circular reasoning,
Quote:
I did not "quote my position" and use it as a premise, which is what you have been doing.
Bull shit! every move I've made has been explained according to logic. you are merely privileging atheist assumptions. you did just quote your position the little sermon on how gods are made up that doesn't have anything to do with the argument.

Quote:
Your word "God" does not appear anywhere in the premises of your argument. It only appears in the conclusion.
that's a mere technicality.

T
Quote:
herefore, you have inserted some hidden steps in your reasoning to arrive at your conclusion. What I am doing here is disagreeing with your characterization of what the word "God" usually refers to. A god is a powerful spiritual being that people worship. You are using the name "God" in order to drag in a lot of extra baggage that simply doesn't belong there.
saying that doesn't change the logic. if I put the ord God in does it suddenly become true? there are two hidden steps

(1) all things we observe in nature are caused without exception. argue QM theory I have a dandy answer.

(2) God is the term we use to designate eternal necessary being

both are common knowledge

no philosopher begins an argument by saying :I am using logic because it is logical." the obvious can be assumed.
Metacrock is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:44 AM   #619760 / #70
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
I said up front I don't seek to prove elf but to show belief in elf is rationally warranted.
(FIFY)

Be sure to let us know when you do that.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:44 AM   #619761 / #71
Val
Futue te ipsum.
 
Val's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 5,809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
that's not circular. It's totally linear.
No, it's an infinite regression. Learn the difference.

Quote:

1. All contingencies have causes.

2.All natural things are contingent.

no 2 is derived from no 1. because all contingent things have causes they are contingent. contingent means to have a cause. that is not circulars, it is not stated that natural things all have causes but it doesn't have to be stated. It's common knowledge.
I don't think contingent means what you think it means. The universe is a happy accident? One bright shiny day god was in the mood for some reality constructin' tomfoolery?

Why that particular day? If causality is temporal, why suddenly at a certain point in time did allah cause everything? Did he have an itch up his arse? Pan-galactic sphincter flea?

Quote:
3.The universe is natural, therefore it is contingent.

that's your basic modus ponens. 1 and 2 establish that universe is natural, it is cotangent. why? because it's made of causes.

modus ponens: if p then q, p therefore q;

if caused then contingent

U = cause therefore U = contingent.

no circle.
No, mate. p then q implies temporality. p therefor q implies simultaneity. Which is it?

Quote:
argument from analogy
I was going to say "festering boil on the creationist arsehole" but that would have been tautological.


Quote:
you are merely gainsaying the evidence.
I think you mean "naysay". And what evidence? Your argument from assertion?

Well shit, if you say so!

Quote:
atheist logic is so convoluted
I agree, it's hard to grok for the uninitiated.

Quote:
and your brain washing ad stripped your ability to understand linear thinking: the concept of God is that of necessary being. that's the idea in which we believe.. you can't deny the right to defend a belief mere.ly because you don't hold it.
Nobody is telling you what to believe. Indeed, your gymnastics bring great amusement and we don't want to deprive ourselves of it.

Quote:
I already established why it's not logical to posit a caused ultimate origin (it wou8ld not be ultimate).
So your solution to infinite regress is to simply deny it?

Quote:
To the contrary. I already alluded to the fact that ICR is illogical and impossible. so no infinite string of causes will do. It has to be a final cause.
Ahem....


Quote:
as for anthropomorphizing I said nothing of the kind. In a philosophical argument one is arguing for a place holder. We are a long way from filling it out.
I never said you did, but I did say that creotards have been forced to deny specifics in lieu of vague pseudo-intellectualism.


Quote:
That really speaks to our logical abilities when you have to resort to name calling. that speaks so highly of your argument. I can/t discuss the "specific dogmas" because you wouldn't understand them and to the basic fact that God is obvious. you are so afraid of that reality you can't reason about it.
Yeah, very obvious. I got yer jumpin jesus h. Mcfuckin Christ right here.


Quote:
Translation: I am going stamp my little foot because you are better read than I am and Christians are supposed to be stupid; sorry I am not stupid enough for you to beat. Get used to it. If your views are really worth anything you should be able to beat my argument without name calling, or bluster. stand or fall by the logic.
You seem to think this is some sort of competition... hint: it ain't. What it is, is comedy, and I prefer to sit down while getting my dose of it.
Val is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 09:48 AM   #619762 / #72
Val
Futue te ipsum.
 
Val's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 5,809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Soul View Post
Hey hey, athiest watch.

I'm about to get published, fellers!

yes you are going to be famous, all the spambots in china will know your work.
Excellent. I look forward to receiving some quality content after being exposed to your drivel.
Val is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 10:03 AM   #619763 / #73
Val
Futue te ipsum.
 
Val's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 5,809
Default

Let's try something else for the benefit of our resident creationist buddy.

Some questions:

1) Do natural things have natural causes?

a) Sometimes
b) Always
c) Never

2) Do natural things have unnatural causes?

a) Sometimes
b) Always
c) Never

3) Do unnatural things have natural causes?

a) Sometimes
b) Always
c) Never

4) Do unnatural things have unnatural causes?

a) Sometimes
b) Always
c) Never
Val is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 12:02 PM   #619768 / #74
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
the fact of contingent nature is empirical. we have no counter examples.
False. We have the universe. As you like to say "all evidence" supports the universe was "uncaused." Or, rather, we have the evidence supporting the theory of the big bang, a singularity that all evidence supports was uncaused that in turn created the universe.

Quote:
but logically we can't go on with recession of causes indefinitely
False. An infinite regress is in fact entirely logical, strictly speaking. What you are asserting is that an infinite regress is not empirically possible, but that too is false based on "all the evidence." In an eternally existing universe, there is no such thing as a beginning (or an end).

That you can't wrap your head around that is not an argument disproving it; it just underscores your inability to conceive of it.

Quote:
there has to be a point of stopping
Again, no there is no magical "has to be." You want it to be, but it does not follow your wants. You are desperately trying to constrain that which need not be constrained while refusing to see the irony in positing instead an unconstrained entity in its place. If you can assert an unconstrained constrainer then you have disproved your operating assertion that all things are constrained.

You don't get to say "everything is necessarily contingent except for this one thing that isn't necessarily contingent" because that axiomatically means that everything is not necessarily contingent. And no you have not already addressed this and no I will not read some link you think explains it and no this has nothing to do with my beliefs; this is what you have failed and continue to fail and will always fail to justify because it is inherently self-contradictory by the very structure you keep asserting you are relying on to justify it.

Quote:
that's what we call God.
That's what we call the big bang.

I don't give a flying fart what anyone "calls" it however; you don't get special dispensation to call it AL;JFD;LAJ;LKJ and then just say, "Oh, by AL;JFD;LAJ;LKJ I meant what everyone else kind of means when they use the letters 'g' 'o' and 'd'."

This is your argument in total:

The big bang is the first mover.
I define AL;JFD;LAJ;LKJ as "that which came before the big bang."
Therefore, AL;JFD;LAJ;LKJ is the first mover.


And when we point out your glaringly obvious fallacy you have no other recourse but to resort to petulant insults and falsely accusing us of your own crimes as if that somehow mitigates your own.

Iow, same old Metacrock!
__________________
Stupidity is not intellen
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 14 Dec 2015, 01:43 PM   #619777 / #75
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Go on then Metacrock. Explain, using logic, why everything has to be contingent, except god.
If you read the first page you woul know thyat zi did that.

the fact of contingent nature is empirical. we have no counter examples. but logically we can't go on with recession of causes indefinitely there has to be a point of stopping that's what we call God.

against infinite causal regression
I briefly scanned the referenced article by Hilbert in that link, in which article the link says Hilbert 'argues that the notion that a beginingless series of events with no higher cause is impossible' and I couldn't see where Hilbert either says infinity is impossible or even uses the words 'higher cause' at all. I couldn't even find the word 'cause'.

Did I miss it?

Last edited by ruby sparks; 14 Dec 2015 at 02:04 PM.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus