Free will, freedom from what?

[phyllo]

Is there a reason that every thread on this forum ends up being about some religious bullshit?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The tread topic is free-will. It's not about god or the origins of the universe.

[bahman]

Is there a reason that every thread on this forum ends up being about some religious bullshit?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The tread topic is free-will. It's not about god or the origins of the universe.

I guess that is what happened: Free will-> moral responsibility -> morality -> God -> the beginning of the universe...

[Immanuel Can]

I understand red shift and the law of thermodynamics. Can you now show me the "deductive" argument for God?

"For God." You mean, "for the existence of God?" That's the right thing to ask. Because we're not going to use the same strategy to unpack the particular nature of the God in question. We're only going to show that some sort of Supreme Being exists.

Here we go.

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?

No questions. I agree with the premises and conclusion. Can you show me the deductive argument for God now?

That was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.

P1: There are two possible alternatives for a First Cause of the universe: an intelligent one, or a non-intelligent one.
P2: The evidence of intelligent design is significant.
P3: The reasonable candidates for non-intelligent design are zero in number.
C: Therefore, the most rational conclusion is that an Intelligent Designer is the First Cause of the existence of the universe.

Questions?

[Gary Childress]

"For God." You mean, "for the existence of God?" That's the right thing to ask. Because we're not going to use the same strategy to unpack the particular nature of the God in question. We're only going to show that some sort of Supreme Being exists.

Here we go.

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?

No questions. I agree with the premises and conclusion. Can you show me the deductive argument for God now?

That was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.

P1: There are two possible alternatives for a First Cause of the universe: an intelligent one, or a non-intelligent one.
P2: The evidence of intelligent design is significant.
P3: The reasonable candidates for non-intelligent design are zero in number.
C: Therefore, the most rational conclusion is that an Intelligent Designer is the First Cause of the existence of the universe.

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?

[phyllo]

Is there a reason that every thread on this forum ends up being about some religious bullshit?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The tread topic is free-will. It's not about god or the origins of the universe.

I guess that is what happened: Free will-> moral responsibility -> morality -> God -> the beginning of the universe...

It's not just this topic. Literally any topic can be hijacked and it often is.

This place looks more like a religious site rather than a philosophy site.

[phyllo]

Why you guys just start a thread about origins of the universe and discuss it there?

[Gary Childress]

Why you guys just start a thread about origins of the universe and discuss it there?

Will do. Apologies for the tangent.

[bahman]

I'll answer your question if you read the previous argument, and show you understand it. If you do, you won't need to ask the question anymore.

I understand red shift and the law of thermodynamics. Can you now show me the "deductive" argument for God?

"For God." You mean, "for the existence of God?" That's the right thing to ask. Because we're not going to use the same strategy to unpack the particular nature of the God in question. We're only going to show that some sort of Supreme Being exists.

Here we go.

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

The universe had a beginning. That however does not mean that it has a necessary cause. The physical stuff just was there!

P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.

Questions?

Therefore, your argument does not follow. Please see the previous comment.

[phyllo]

Why you guys just start a thread about origins of the universe and discuss it there?

Will do. Apologies for the tangent.

Thank you.

That's very kind of you.

[henry quirk]

do the consequences always follow justifiably from the act?

In an amoral universe where we're machines going thru the motions: all consequences amount to a sterile A -> B -> C. There's no justice.

In the moral universe we actually live in: yes, there's always a just consequence (though mebbe not the ultimate just consequence). Thing is: what bites someone on the ass -- that just earthly consequence -- may not be readily apparent to you and me. Why should it be? Reality isn't a floor show and we're not an audience. Incidentally, just becuz a bad act leads to a bad consequence, that's not why we should do right. Sayin', for example, I won't rape becuz I'll be punished if I do is not a moral choice. Sayin' I won't rape, even if I could get away with it, becuz that woman's life and body belong to her, not me, that's a moral choice.

[Immanuel Can]

No questions. I agree with the premises and conclusion. Can you show me the deductive argument for God now?

That was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.

P1: There are two possible alternatives for a First Cause of the universe: an intelligent one, or a non-intelligent one.
P2: The evidence of intelligent design is significant.
P3: The reasonable candidates for non-intelligent design are zero in number.
C: Therefore, the most rational conclusion is that an Intelligent Designer is the First Cause of the existence of the universe.

Questions?

I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently?

That's not quite what the third premise entails. And it isn't quite what it says, either.

What the third premise means is very simply, "We have no reasonable candidates for a non-intelligent thing that creates."

And it's true. For for something to be a genuine First Cause, it would have to have some specific characteristics: it would have to be capable of creating at least SOME order...since a great deal of it exits, as pointed out in P2. It would itself have to be eternal and uncaused, or it couldn't be a "First" Cause of anything. And it would have to be capable of creating ex nihilo, or "from nothing," since again, if anything precedes the First Cause, then the First Cause isn't first. (So it couldn't, for example, implicate a creation from pre-existing matter, unless we suppose that pre-existing matter was eternal, which we can also prove incorrect from things like thermodynamics.)

So what would be eternal...and capable of design and order...and first?

Well, we only know of a few eternal things. Most of them are abstractions, such as (possibly but controversially) mathematical properties. But mathematical figures do not create. They aren't materially active. They're abstractions. They have an adjectival, not active relation to reality.

Or concepts: but concepts exist in a mind, and whatever we conclude must be the First Cause, it would then have to be the Mind that has the concepts.

So if mathematical figures and concepts don't work, what are the alternate candidates? God or....?

[Gary Childress]

That was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.

P1: There are two possible alternatives for a First Cause of the universe: an intelligent one, or a non-intelligent one.
P2: The evidence of intelligent design is significant.
P3: The reasonable candidates for non-intelligent design are zero in number.
C: Therefore, the most rational conclusion is that an Intelligent Designer is the First Cause of the existence of the universe.

Questions?

I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently?

That's not quite what the third premise entails. And it isn't quite what it says, either.

What the third premise means is very simply, "We have no reasonable candidates for a non-intelligent thing that creates."

So are you saying that water flowing in a river softens the edges of rocks because of the water's volition?

[Atla]

That was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.

P1: There are two possible alternatives for a First Cause of the universe: an intelligent one, or a non-intelligent one.
P2: The evidence of intelligent design is significant.
P3: The reasonable candidates for non-intelligent design are zero in number.
C: Therefore, the most rational conclusion is that an Intelligent Designer is the First Cause of the existence of the universe.

Questions?

I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently?

That's not quite what the third premise entails. And it isn't quite what it says, either.

What the third premise means is very simply, "We have no reasonable candidates for a non-intelligent thing that creates."

And it's true. For for something to be a genuine First Cause, it would have to have some specific characteristics: it would have to be capable of creating at least SOME order...since a great deal of it exits, as pointed out in P2. It would itself have to be eternal and uncaused, or it couldn't be a "First" Cause of anything. And it would have to be capable of creating ex nihilo, or "from nothing," since again, if anything precedes the First Cause, then the First Cause isn't first. (So it couldn't, for example, implicate a creation from pre-existing matter, unless we suppose that pre-existing matter was eternal, which we can also prove incorrect from things like thermodynamics.)

So what would be eternal...and capable of design and order...and first?

Well, we only know of a few eternal things. Most of them are abstractions, such as (possibly but controversially) mathematical properties. But mathematical figures do not create. They aren't materially active. They're abstractions. They have an adjectival, not active relation to reality.

Or concepts: but concepts exist in a mind, and whatever we conclude must be the First Cause, it would then have to be the Mind that has the concepts.

So if mathematical figures and concepts don't work, what are the alternate candidates? God or....?

If you go to the thread Gary started, that could again be -1 point from God, as you could pester a bigger audience here. What will you do now?

[Immanuel Can]

I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently?

That's not quite what the third premise entails. And it isn't quite what it says, either.

What the third premise means is very simply, "We have no reasonable candidates for a non-intelligent thing that creates."

So are you saying that water flowing in a river softens the edges of rocks because of the water's volition?

Are you supposing that water erosion is "creation"? It rather seems the opposite, does it not? It seems yet another case of entropy.

[Immanuel Can]

The universe had a beginning. That however does not mean that it has a necessary cause. The physical stuff just was there!

You've just contradicted yourself. If the "stuff was just there," then there has to be a cause of "the stuff." Whatever that is, IT is the First Cause, by definition. Moreover, since physical stuff is entropic, we know it hasn't always existed. We can watch it dissolving. There's only so long dissolution can go on, until there's nothing left.