Deductive Argument for the existence of God?

[Age]

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.

Who cares about False postulations like an uncaused first mover to set everything in motion, like big bang is claimed to be.

Once again, for the hard of HEARING, and the slow of LEARNING, there was no moment that set everything in motion, called either God nor big bang, as there was never any moment of 'no motion'.

Once more, the Universe, Itself, is, always, eternally 'in motion'.

[Age]

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.

LOL Here 'we' who claims there is some sort of so-called 'standard usage', and funnier still is 'we' have another one who believes, absolutely, that they have, know, and use the so-called "standard language'.

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.

But, 'the boy' was only able to throw rocks because 'the boy' was 'caused'. 'We' probably would not say sperm entering the egg nor the position the boys parents were in caused the boy to be 'caused', instead 'we' would, probably, say; it was the parents fucking, which 'caused' the boy to be created. After all this is so-called 'standard language', is it not?

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

The rock also, or the weakness of the throw, although necessary conditions, for that one particular example, but not sufficient to 'cause' the apple to fall. It could have been the strength of the wind, in fact, that 'caused' the apple to fall. Or, a combination of a few other things. But, still, it is absolutely irrefutably obvious that you human beings are not needed for things to be 'caused'.

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,

Here is another one who believes, absolutely, that the Universe began.

But, who else could not ever explain how 'that presumed and believed beginning' was 'caused'.

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.

LOL So, because 'this one' is limited in its views, then so-called 'normal usage of words' also 'has to be limited's, to the extent that you han beings 'caused' the earth to come into existence through your own 'manipulation'.

The earth was 'not caused' by gravity attracting matter into the object known as earth, but instead the earth was 'caused' by you human beings 'manipulating' it into existence, well according to "alexiev" anyway.

And, maybe you did this a few billions years before you came into existence so the 'you' could then be 'caused', and created?

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?

But, when did 'it' become so-called ' trump's" election '?

Obviously one human beings with the name and label "trump" is in 'an election's, but it is obviously not ' "trump's" election '.

[Age]

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.

But, what 'It' is, exactly, which causes, or creates, absolutely every thing is known as, called, or just referred as God, anyway..

[Age]

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.)

So, the claim that earthquake or the landslide 'caused' the tidal wave is not so-called 'normal language' nor 'standard speech', well in "akexiev's" world anyway.

[Skepdick]

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").

You are stuck in faulty mode of reasoning and you are going to waste everybody's time over semantics.

Try this instead:

P1. Generally speaking, everything which begins to exist has an X.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. The Universe most probably has an X.

Once you accept the logical validity/form of the deductive argument we can then begin to iterate over what X is.

For X in [explanation, origin, Raison d'être, existential dependency, necessary conditions for doing so, ...].
You can use any one of those phrasings and the argument retains its core message/point.

Now, if you insist on unpacking the meaning of words - I'll just keep adding to the list of alternative phrasings/expressions while still retaining the essence of the argument.

That is to say - If you insist being a sophist and a nitpicker over the precise meaning of imprecise words - I will gladly and intentionally waste your time in the sandbox of your own making.

If we are to use the Philosophical vocabulary: the debate is over the (non?)contingency of the universe. That's it.

Theism says the universe is contingent.
Atheism/materialism says the universe is not contingent.

So...

P1. Generally speaking, everything which begins to exist is contingent.
P2. The universe begins to exist.
C The universe is most probably contingent.

The debate isn't about the meaning of words.

The debate is about shaping the mindset and paradigm used to interpret the world with.

So instead of dragging us into the semantic rabbithole trysome questions instead:

Is the gneral pattern of contingency for things that begin to exist applicable to the universe? If not - what justifies this special pleading?
What evidence supports or challenges the idea that the universe began to exist? Do we have a scientific paradigm which considers the universe without beginning e.g non-contingent?
How does the contingency or non-contingency of the universe shape our broader worldview?

[Belinda]

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.

But, what 'It' is, exactly, which causes, or creates, absolutely every thing is known as, called, or just referred as God, anyway..

One may as well ask why is there something instead of nothing:order out of chaos. For myself, I am inclined to think what makes order out of chaos is thinking feeling life forms. For the Cause of thinking feeling life forms we must have recourse to science.

[Belinda]

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.

One may call the first cause "God" however if so we need to question the attributes of God. Is 'he' good, or is 'he' goodness itself. Does 'he' intervene in history. Is 'he' cognate with existence itself or is 'he' supernatural.

God is trivialised if 'he' is held to be the first cause, because 'first' implies a time scale whereas God is eternal ----- timeless.

[Age]

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.

But, what 'It' is, exactly, which causes, or creates, absolutely every thing is known as, called, or just referred as God, anyway..

One may as well ask why is there something instead of nothing:order out of chaos.

one might ask such a question, but 'the answer' is already known. Well by some of 'us' anyway.

And, there was not time when there was so-called 'order' nor so-called 'chaos'. The Universe has just been working how It is NOW, always.

For myself, I am inclined to think what makes order out of chaos is thinking feeling life forms.

Okay, but what do you even mean when you say 'order' and 'chaos', here?

For the Cause of thinking feeling life forms we must have recourse to science.

What are you on about here? you human beings have just came about the exact same way that everything else has come about.

Also, what I said and claimed, which you are responding to here, is proved absolutely True, through and by "science", anyway.

[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

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").

Cause used in the general way I suggest is clearly distinct from coincidence, so I'm going to just reject that objection out of hand as purest nonsense.

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.

Three Concepts of Causation by Chris Hitchcock perhaps?

Either way, I am using these concepts quite normally. The rock rolling down the hill caused the car to crash. The driver who didn't watch out for falling rocks caused the car to crash, if the rock hadn't rolled down the hill, or if the driver had been more vigilant, the car wouldn't have crashed. You can write normal usage off as folk-talk and prefer a specialised scientific language in its place should you wish, but everyone else has the right to reject such a move unless you can show some reason other than that you once read a paper for doing this sort of thing.

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.)

I can't work out what's going on here. It seems like some assumption that where there is no blame there is no cause? Just look at the word "because". Any time that a thing happens because of another thing, then that was cause. If it happens because of many things then there is a set of causes, this isn't confusing.

The cosmological argument is shit as it stands, there is no need to do something so drastic as to change what causation means just to disarm it.

[Age]

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.

One may call the first cause "God" however if so we need to question the attributes of God. Is 'he' good, or is 'he' goodness itself. Does 'he' intervene in history. Is 'he' cognate with existence itself or is 'he' supernatural.

God is trivialised if 'he' is held to be the first cause, because 'first' implies a time scale whereas God is eternal ----- timeless.

But, first 'we' need to question you human beings why you, still, refer to God as a "he"?

It is, obviously, absolutely illogical, absurd, ridiculous,.and irrational to just think that God, Itself, could be a "him", let alone to keep calling God a "him".

Just so you people here become aware God is not, and never could be, a "he".

[Skepdick]

The cosmological argument is shit as it stands

The most brilliant argument (about anything) can be dismissed with just - dismissal.

Because it's not about the arguments...

[Belinda]

Very much so.


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


God is the First Cause, so yes.

One may call the first cause "God" however if so we need to question the attributes of God. Is 'he' good, or is 'he' goodness itself. Does 'he' intervene in history. Is 'he' cognate with existence itself or is 'he' supernatural.

God is trivialised if 'he' is held to be the first cause, because 'first' implies a time scale whereas God is eternal ----- timeless.

But, first 'we' need to question you human beings why you, still, refer to God as a "he"?

It is, obviously, absolutely illogical, absurd, ridiculous,.and irrational to just think that God, Itself, could be a "him", let alone to keep calling God a "him".

Just so you people here become aware God is not, and never could be, a "he".

We don't need to philosophise about why God is traditionally a he not a she. The reason is historical ,cultural ,or perhaps Jungian psychological. In any case we do no need to be metaphysical about it.

[Age]

One may call the first cause "God" however if so we need to question the attributes of God. Is 'he' good, or is 'he' goodness itself. Does 'he' intervene in history. Is 'he' cognate with existence itself or is 'he' supernatural.

God is trivialised if 'he' is held to be the first cause, because 'first' implies a time scale whereas God is eternal ----- timeless.

But, first 'we' need to question you human beings why you, still, refer to God as a "he"?

It is, obviously, absolutely illogical, absurd, ridiculous,.and irrational to just think that God, Itself, could be a "him", let alone to keep calling God a "him".

Just so you people here become aware God is not, and never could be, a "he".

We don't need to philosophise about why God is traditionally a he not a she.

Why are you so narrowed viewed here?

God, Itself could never ever be "he" nor "she".

Work out why, exactly, you would consider God to be either, then you will also discover how often you human beings anthropomorphisize 'things'.

The reason is historical ,cultural ,or perhaps Jungian psychological. In any case we do no need to be metaphysical about it.

I ALREADY KNOW WHY you human beings Falsely and Wrongly call God, Itself, a "he", and even a "she" as well.

There is no wonder why these human beings, back then, when this was being written, took so, so long to 'catch up', as some would say.

Even when things could not be more obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, these people would, still, spend 'time' to 'try to' argue for and 'justify' to keep using the EXACT Wrong terms and usage of words.

[Gary Childress]

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, I'm not consciously trying to deceive anyone. If I'm trying to do so "subconsciously", then I guess I wouldn't know it, however, I'm not sure how agnosticism deceives anyone about anything. Most "deceivers" try to tell people that they know more than they do. I mean, you talk about knowing "thee truth" a lot as though no one but you knows it. Do you think you might be trying to deceive others, or do you think it's possible that you might be "subconsciously" trying to deceive us about something?

[Immanuel Can]

...however, I'm not sure how agnosticism deceives anyone about anything.

Oh, we can figure that out easily enough.

What about the person who pretends not to know what the actual speed limit is, so he can feel okay about speeding, or maybe can have an excuse with the cop who pulls him over? He's being "agnostic" so he feels no responsiblity; but he actually knows what the speed limit is, perhaps.

Is that not a form of deception? Can one not deceive by pretending not to know what he cannot help not knowing? And can he not deceive others by telling them nobody can know, when people can?