Deductive Argument for the existence of God?

[Alexiev]

Traditionally, "cause and effect" seem to have meant something along the lines of the classical example of billiard balls. One billiard ball hits another and "causes" it to roll in the opposite direction from which it was struck. I think that was the standard idea of matter of the early materialists. However, as some point out, including Noam Chomsky, the more theorists have delved into physics, the less we seem to be sure that matter is really like billiard balls. Apparently, there are phenomena that defy the standard billiard ball model of cause and effect, such as quantum entanglement which seems to hint at "spooky action from a distance" as theorists call it (such as with the force of gravity), things 'communicating' with each other or reacting to each other instantaneously, faster than the speed of information or light.

I remember reading of an experiment where neuroscientists measured the delay in the firing of a synapse and could tell before a person reacted, what they were going to say or do. Essentially predicting behavior before the person was aware of what they were going to do.

The more closely we focus our attention and learn, the stranger the world seems to get. For example, the classic particle vs wave phenomenon of atomic "particles".

The billiard balls are an example of how "cause" means "a handle we can manipulate," We control how we hit the cue ball. Its speed, direction and spin influence the direction of the object ball, so we say they "cause" the object ball to go in a particular direction. But, of course, there are infinite other factors influencing the path of the balls. Without gravity, the balls would fly off the table instead of into the pocket. The material with which the billiard balls are made might be adhesive, so the balls would stick together after contact. Or it might be less smooth, causing the friction at contact to have more influence over direction. The direction, speed and spin of the cue ball are variables controlled by the player. Hence they are correctly said to "cause" the direction of the object ball, but innumerable other factors are also necessary.

[FlashDangerpants]

The billiard balls are an example of how "cause" means "a handle we can manipulate," We control how we hit the cue ball. Its speed, direction and spin influence the direction of the object ball, so we say they "cause" the object ball to go in a particular direction. But, of course, there are infinite other factors influencing the path of the balls. Without gravity, the balls would fly off the table instead of into the pocket. The material with which the billiard balls are made might be adhesive, so the balls would stick together after contact. Or it might be less smooth, causing the friction at contact to have more influence over direction. The direction, speed and spin of the cue ball are variables controlled by the player. Hence they are correctly said to "cause" the direction of the object ball, but innumerable other factors are also necessary.

Cause isn't restricted to only things that we can manipulate. Anything that plays a causal role in explanations of outcomes from interactions is a cause, and what you listed there were lots of causal interactions. Gravity plays a causal role in apples falling off trees, thus is a cause. The weave of the cloth on the billiard tables affects the speed and distance that billiard a ball of a certain velocity rolls; and a rougher cloth cause the ball to roll less far than a smoother one, so that's a causal relationship.

IIRC I think the original cosmo argument was more about movement than about matter, making the causal story slightly easier to digest. So the the thing postulated is an uncaused first mover to set everything in motion. But I don't care about religious philosophy so I could be getting that wrong.

[Alexiev]

Cause isn't restricted to only things that we can manipulate. Anything that plays a causal role in explanations of outcomes from interactions is a cause, and what you listed there were lots of causal interactions. Gravity plays a causal role in apples falling off trees, thus is a cause. The weave of the cloth on the billiard tables affects the speed and distance that billiard a ball of a certain velocity rolls; and a rougher cloth cause the ball to roll less far than a smoother one, so that's a causal relationship.

IIRC I think the original cosmo argument was more about movement than about matter, making the causal story slightly easier to digest. So the the thing postulated is an uncaused first mover to set everything in motion. But I don't care about religious philosophy so I could be getting that wrong.

In Standard usage "cause" generally refers to a variable instead of a constant. If a child throws a rock that hits the apple and knocks it off the tree, we might say the apple fell because of the rock. Of course gravity is necessary (although not sufficient) to create the fall of the apple. So, perhaps, is the strength of the stem holding the apple to the branch. If it wasn't a little rotten, the apple wouldn't fall. But we probably wouldn''t say gravity or the rotten stem caused the apple to fall; it was the boy with the rock.

Gravity or the weak stem are necessary conditions, but not sufficient to cause the apple to fall.

We say germs "cause" disease. But, of course, some people who are infected become ill and others do not. "Cause" becomes meaningless when all necessary conditions are included, because there are infinite necessary preconditions for every subsequent event. If everything that has happened was inevitable from the big bang, it would be useless to say that Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential election because of the Big Bang. For the word "cause" to be meaningful and coherent, it must be limited. And, in fact, in normal usage it is limited, as I have just described.

One more example: if all of Donald Trump's ancestors -- human and non-human -- hadn't bred Trump would never have become President. Is it meaningful to call all of these millions of matings the "cause" of Trump's election?

[Belinda]

Cause isn't restricted to only things that we can manipulate. Anything that plays a causal role in explanations of outcomes from interactions is a cause, and what you listed there were lots of causal interactions. Gravity plays a causal role in apples falling off trees, thus is a cause. The weave of the cloth on the billiard tables affects the speed and distance that billiard a ball of a certain velocity rolls; and a rougher cloth cause the ball to roll less far than a smoother one, so that's a causal relationship.

IIRC I think the original cosmo argument was more about movement than about matter, making the causal story slightly easier to digest. So the the thing postulated is an uncaused first mover to set everything in motion. But I don't care about religious philosophy so I could be getting that wrong.

In Standard usage "cause" generally refers to a variable instead of a constant. If a child throws a rock that hits the apple and knocks it off the tree, we might say the apple fell because of the rock. Of course gravity is necessary (although not sufficient) to create the fall of the apple. So, perhaps, is the strength of the stem holding the apple to the branch. If it wasn't a little rotten, the apple wouldn't fall. But we probably wouldn''t say gravity or the rotten stem caused the apple to fall; it was the boy with the rock.

Gravity or the weak stem are necessary conditions, but not sufficient to cause the apple to fall.

We say germs "cause" disease. But, of course, some people who are infected become ill and others do not. "Cause" becomes meaningless when all necessary conditions are included, because there are infinite necessary preconditions for every subsequent event. If everything that has happened was inevitable from the big bang, it would be useless to say that Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential election because of the Big Bang. For the word "cause" to be meaningful and coherent, it must be limited. And, in fact, in normal usage it is limited, as I have just described.

One more example: if all of Donald Trump's ancestors -- human and non-human -- hadn't bred Trump would never have become President. Is it meaningful to call all of these millions of matings the "cause" of Trump's election?

Donald Trump, diseases, and apples have proximal causes attributed to them according to who makes the assertion, However Trump, diseases, and apples are each caused by either nature or God ------ not by any proximal causes or causal chains.

At the level of nature itself , physics now informs us that time , space, and causation are man made concepts

[FlashDangerpants]

In Standard usage "cause" generally refers to a variable instead of a constant.

I wouldn't know about that, but IC and Gary are using the concept in the normal way for philosophical discussion.

The SEP has a little diagram for people who want to take things further and get weighed down with constants, variables, types and tokens. I don't really see it playing out to your advantage though. In terms of causal relationships and inputs and outputs which is all that the asserted argument needs, hair splitting about the degree to which something causes an outcome versus influencing it doesn't seem relevant.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/caus ... taphysics/

Code: Select all

 		Tokens				Types
Constants	Token Causation			Type Causation
Variables	Token Influence			Type Influence

[Belinda]

In Standard usage "cause" generally refers to a variable instead of a constant.

I wouldn't know about that, but IC and Gary are using the concept in the normal way for philosophical discussion.

The SEP has a little diagram for people who want to take things further and get weighed down with constants, variables, types and tokens. I don't really see it playing out to your advantage though. In terms of causal relationships and inputs and outputs which is all that the asserted argument needs, hair splitting about the degree to which something causes an outcome versus influencing it doesn't seem relevant.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/caus ... taphysics/

Code: Select all

 		Tokens				Types
Constants	Token Causation			Type Causation
Variables	Token Influence			Type Influence

I agree all that is a bit tangential. If you take causal chains, causal circumstances, and so-called laws of nature into account you logically arrive at the conclusion that there is one whole cause that includes every event . Whether or not this "whole cause" is God or not, is another discussion.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you take causal chains, causal circumstances, and so-called laws of nature into account you logically arrive at the conclusion that there is one whole cause that includes every event

If indeed.

[Janoah]

there is one whole cause that includes every event .

Very much so.


***Whether or not this "whole cause" is God or not, is another discussion.***


God is the First Cause, so yes.

[Alexiev]

In Standard usage "cause" generally refers to a variable instead of a constant.

I wouldn't know about that, but IC and Gary are using the concept in the normal way for philosophical discussion.

The SEP has a little diagram for people who want to take things further and get weighed down with constants, variables, types and tokens. I don't really see it playing out to your advantage though. In terms of causal relationships and inputs and outputs which is all that the asserted argument needs, hair splitting about the degree to which something causes an outcome versus influencing it doesn't seem relevant.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/caus ... taphysics/

Code: Select all

 		Tokens				Types
Constants	Token Causation			Type Causation
Variables	Token Influence			Type Influence

My point is that if (as Belinda points out) we use "cause" in the more general way that you suggest, it becomes meaningless. If everything is the cause, then nothing is the cause (or, at least, there is no reason to differentiate "causes" from "coincidences").

By the way, I didn't invent the definition of "cause" I suggest -- I cribbed it from some professional philosophy article I read years ago, but I can't remember the reference. Also, I'm discussing "cause" as it is used in normal, English speech. We say germs "cause" disease because we have antibiotics. But we know that there are a great many other factors involved, some of which are handles we can manipulate, some of which are not.
The battle is not to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but time and chance happeneth to it all.

With regard to the "first cause" promoted by the religious (I admit I haven't read this entire thread), those promoting God as a first cause seem to embrace my definition -- one meaning of "cause" refers to an intentional act by a conscious agent. The movement of molecules and energies etc. involves coincidences, some of which follow other coincidences, but to call them "causes" requires a definition of "cause" inconsistent with the way in which the word is used in standard speech. (I glanced at the linked article, but haven't read it carefully yet.)

[Age]

the existence of God

What is God doing now, Gary?

You'll have to ask IC or consult some holy book. I'm just an ignorant human who doesn't know answers to such questions.

Why would any one 'consult' "immanuel can" for a clarifying answer to the clarifying question here?

LOL "immanuel can", still, believes, absolutely, that God is 'male-gendered', (or male-sexed, as one here would prefer), so "immanuel can" would be one of the very last to 'consult' or seek out 'clarification' from here.

[Age]

These people actually believed that they could fool and deceive you readers here.

When you say, "these people", who are you specifically referring to, Age. Are you referring to me as well?

Yes, if you are consciously, and/or, even in or sub consciously, 'trying to' deceive any one here.

[Age]

P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.

Questions?

I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently? I mean, rocks seem to be shaped by water flowing in a stream and their edges are often smoothed some by the process. Probably no two rocks are the same. Is it fair to say that a rock in a stream has rounded edges but we don't know if it was "intelligently" designed or not?

Continued from another thread.

Thoughts?

First, the notion that everything that happens must have a "cause" is incorrect. Generally, what we mean by "cause" is either the intentional act of conscious agent, or a variable we can manipulate.

OR, if two bodies of matter interact then this 'effect', was 'caused'. you know, like; 'every effect has, or was, caused'. Just like; 'for every action there is a reaction'.

So, for absolutely every thing that happens there was, obviously, a 'cause'.

Now, if you want to only 'look at' and 'see' the word 'cause' as or from just a very limited or even a closed view and perspective only, then you are perfectly free to do so. But, is telling others how they 'look at'' and 'see' things as being incorrect a very intelligent, and correct, thing to do, in and of itself?

If you shoot someone, you "cause" his death (although, of course, the powder, bullet, accuracy etc. are also involved). So if "cause" is used this way, postulate 1 is circular. Second, in experimental science, the "cause" is sometimes seen as the variable (although other conditions are necessary for the effect). We didn't manipulate the "cause" of the origin of the universe, so we can rule that out.

But, there was never any 'origin of the Universe', well not in 'the way' you adult human beings 'see' and 'perceive' things here, in the days this is being written, anyway.

There is an origin, or a first cause, but absolutely nothing like how you ones here are presuming nor believing.

In addition, even if (as would be silly) we admit the postulates, they in no way confirm the existence of God. A "creator" may have existed once, but, as Nietzsche suggested, He might be dead.

But, to you, you "causers" still exist, right?

And, if 'you' can be a "causer", then why can 'you' not be a "creator", as well?

So either way, the so called "proof" fails miserably.

[Age]

Continued from another thread.

Thoughts?

First, the notion that everything that happens must have a "cause" is incorrect. Generally, what we mean by "cause" is either the intentional act of conscious agent, or a variable we can manipulate. If you shoot someone, you "cause" his death (although, of course, the powder, bullet, accuracy etc. are also involved). So if "cause" is used this way, postulate 1 is circular. Second, in experimental science, the "cause" is sometimes seen as the variable (although other conditions are necessary for the effect). We didn't manipulate the "cause" of the origin of the universe, so we can rule that out.

In addition, even if (as would be silly) we admit the postulates, they in no way confirm the existence of God. A "creator" may have existed once, but, as Nietzsche suggested, He might be dead.

So either way, the so called "proof" fails miserably.

Traditionally, "cause and effect" seem to have meant something along the lines of the classical example of billiard balls. One billiard ball hits another and "causes" it to roll in the opposite direction from which it was struck. I think that was the standard idea of matter of the early materialists. However, as some point out, including Noam Chomsky, the more theorists have delved into physics, the less we seem to be sure that matter is really like billiard balls. Apparently, there are phenomena that defy the standard billiard ball model of cause and effect, such as quantum entanglement which seems to hint at "spooky action from a distance" as theorists call it (such as with the force of gravity), things 'communicating' with each other or reacting to each other instantaneously, faster than the speed of information or light.

This later part is all just speculation, and as you pointed out only came about only after those who 'speculate', that is, literally, "theorists" only, provided what could be described as Truly 'spooky speculations' indeed.

They are, literally, only theories, guesses, assumptions, and speculations, only. They are certainly not necessarily absolutely any thing related to what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct.

The reason all things that 'actually happen and occur' actually happen and occur for can all be very easily explained, and, very simply understood.

I remember reading of an experiment where neuroscientists measured the delay in the firing of a synapse and could tell before a person reacted, what they were going to say or do.

I would love to 'look at' and 'see' all of the details in the supposed experiment and.in the alleged conclusion.

It is like if the words "scientist" or "neuroscientist", or even "priest" or "preacher", (depending on the time period), are used in some some claim, which is, laughingly, backed up by or support by some alleged 'experiment' or 'it is written in some text and/or book', claim, then just this alone seems to be enough for some people to believe it is irrefutably true, and right.

Now, as for how gravity works, then this is also very simple and easy. Larger objects of mass just attracts smaller objects of mass, and, more denser objects just attract more stronger, or with more attraction.

As, as for things 'communicating' with each other or reacting to each other instantaneously, faster than the speed of information or light, then how could this have been proved, and thus known to be fact? Also, 'communicating', or 'reacting', faster than light is just some thing that just happens and occurs, anyway.

Essentially predicting behavior before the person was aware of what they were going to do.

Is there any actual video footage of this occurring?

If yes, then great where is it, exactly?

But, if no, then why not?

Surely one would have to be able to say what another will say or do, before the other actually says or does it, for this to have been proved True, correct?

If yes, then surely if one could do this, then they would just film it so others could see it, right?

Also, it is very obvious that things occur, like bodily reactions, before thoughts arise, which happens before words can be said, and which happens before bodies can mis/behave, anyway.

There is obviously an order of how and when things happen and occur, with saying words and doing things at the end of the order of things here. So, it is of no surprise that the firing of synapses could be witnessed before words are said or things are done. BUT, I would love to see a human being look at just the firing of synapses, only, and then tell me what 'that one' will, actually, say and do next, and then just wait to observe, and see, what 'that one' actually does say, and does do.

The more closely we focus our attention and learn, the stranger the world seems to get. For example, the classic particle vs wave phenomenon of atomic "particles".

There is absolutely nothing 'strange' nor 'spooky' in this One and only infinite and eternal Universe.

The only reason the world's seemed more Stanger, to human beings back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, was because they would 'look at', and thus 'see', things from a very False and Wrong already distorted perspective. And, when one False or Wrong presumption or believe led them on to 'seeing' more or further False and Wrong conclusions, then this is what kept leading them onto what they called and labelled futher 'strange' or 'spooky' things.

They just kept 'trying to' verify, confirm, or justify a previous distorted False or Wrong presumption or belief, which is what just kept leading them down to 'seeing' stranger and spookier things.

For example, just about all believed or presumed that the Universe began. (So, first False and Wrong presumption/belief). Just because they all had heard and were all told, 'In the beginning, ...'. Combine this with the fact that they, "themselves", 'began', and absolutely everything else around them that they could see and observe also 'began'. So, because every thing, 'to them', 'began', it was not much of a leap to then just conclude, presume, and believe that the Universe, also, 'must of began'.

"theists" then just 'verified' and/or 'confirmed' that the Universe beginning was because of what they called God, a claimed super, all powerful Being.

Whereas, "scientists" claimed that observed 'red shift' meant, absolutely that the Universe is expanding, which means that It was, previously, minutely small, and which must have all 'began'. To these ones 'red shift' 'verified' and/or 'confirmed' that the Universe beginning was because of what they called the big bang.

It was like they all just 'wanted' to 'find evidence' for what they all were previously and 'currently' believing and presuming was true. That was; The Universe began.

[Age]

Not tonight either Josephine.

'this one'

Nope, none of that 'this one' bullshit for me thanks.

you may well not 'want it's, but 'it works', perfectly, on and for 'you' "flashdangeroants".

you have not clarified nor backed up and supported a single word and claim here.

And, the reason for this is blatantly obvious.

[Age]

Traditionally, "cause and effect" seem to have meant something along the lines of the classical example of billiard balls. One billiard ball hits another and "causes" it to roll in the opposite direction from which it was struck. I think that was the standard idea of matter of the early materialists. However, as some point out, including Noam Chomsky, the more theorists have delved into physics, the less we seem to be sure that matter is really like billiard balls. Apparently, there are phenomena that defy the standard billiard ball model of cause and effect, such as quantum entanglement which seems to hint at "spooky action from a distance" as theorists call it (such as with the force of gravity), things 'communicating' with each other or reacting to each other instantaneously, faster than the speed of information or light.

I remember reading of an experiment where neuroscientists measured the delay in the firing of a synapse and could tell before a person reacted, what they were going to say or do. Essentially predicting behavior before the person was aware of what they were going to do.

The more closely we focus our attention and learn, the stranger the world seems to get. For example, the classic particle vs wave phenomenon of atomic "particles".

The billiard balls are an example of how "cause" means "a handle we can manipulate,"

If the wind blew a billiard ball on to another billiard ball, and the former billiard ball 'caused' the other billiard ball to move in any particular direction at any particular speed, then this is a perfect example of 'cause', (and even 'effect'), itself, without one human being manipulating absolutely any thing here.

So, there is no 'a handle we can manipulate' absolutely anywhere at all here.

We control how we hit the cue ball. Its speed, direction and spin influence the direction of the object ball, so we say they "cause" the object ball to go in a particular direction. But, of course, there are infinite other factors influencing the path of the balls. Without gravity, the balls would fly off the table instead of into the pocket. The material with which the billiard balls are made might be adhesive, so the balls would stick together after contact. Or it might be less smooth, causing the friction at contact to have more influence over direction. The direction, speed and spin of the cue ball are variables controlled by the player. Hence they are correctly said to "cause" the direction of the object ball, but innumerable other factors are also necessary.

So, if the wind blows a rock down a hill, which 'causes' another rock to move in a certain direction, at a certain speed, then how, exactly, did you human beings, supposedly, 'manipulate' this?

Obviously 'cause/s' does/do not need the 'manipulation' of any 'being'. But, maybe you are 'trying to' argue that a 'Being' is manipulating, or 'causing', every thing, HERE.

The word 'cause' does not necessarily mean that any 'beings' are manipulating any thing. So, would you like to start again, here?