For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I guess that is what happened: Free will-> moral responsibility -> morality -> God -> the beginning of the universe...
That was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:16 pmNo questions. I agree with the premises and conclusion. Can you show me the deductive argument for God now?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:13 pm"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.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:08 pm
I understand red shift and the law of thermodynamics. Can you now show me the "deductive" argument for God?
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?
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?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:26 pmThat was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:16 pmNo questions. I agree with the premises and conclusion. Can you show me the deductive argument for God now?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:13 pm
"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?
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?
It's not just this topic. Literally any topic can be hijacked and it often is.
The universe had a beginning. That however does not mean that it has a necessary cause. The physical stuff just was there!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:13 pm"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.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:08 pmI understand red shift and the law of thermodynamics. Can you now show me the "deductive" argument for God?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:06 pm
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.
Here we go.
P1: If the universe (or anything) had a beginning, it had a cause.
Therefore, your argument does not follow. Please see the previous comment.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:13 pm P2: The universe had a beginning.
C: Therefore, it had a cause.
Questions?
Thank you.
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.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:19 pmdo the consequences always follow justifiably from the act?
That's not quite what the third premise entails. And it isn't quite what it says, either.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:30 pmI would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:26 pmThat was step 1. Step 2 has to be done inductively, because it's a probabilistic argument, albeit a very high-order one.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:16 pm
No questions. I agree with the premises and conclusion. Can you show me the deductive argument for God now?
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?
So are you saying that water flowing in a river softens the edges of rocks because of the water's volition?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:43 pmThat's not quite what the third premise entails. And it isn't quite what it says, either.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:30 pmI would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:26 pm
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?
What the third premise means is very simply, "We have no reasonable candidates for a non-intelligent thing that creates."
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 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:43 pmThat's not quite what the third premise entails. And it isn't quite what it says, either.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:30 pmI would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:26 pm
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?
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....?
Are you supposing that water erosion is "creation"? It rather seems the opposite, does it not? It seems yet another case of entropy.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:50 pmSo are you saying that water flowing in a river softens the edges of rocks because of the water's volition?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:43 pmThat's not quite what the third premise entails. And it isn't quite what it says, either.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:30 pm
I would question the 3rd premise. Are all things designed intelligently?
What the third premise means is very simply, "We have no reasonable candidates for a non-intelligent thing that creates."
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.