The Cosmological Argument

In fairness, it probably does look interesting from the dog's perspective.


Jared said...

Except, the part that "everything requires a cause" is patently wrong--either the "cause" or the "a cause (as in one)--on the subatomic, atomic, molecular, cellular, macroscopic, and planetary scales (possibly more, I don't know enough about cosmology to make calls on this)...

Examples in ascending order of scale:
1) subatomic: virtual particles
2) atomic: radioactive decay
3) molecular: tautomerization
5) cellular: random-event mutations
5) macroscopic: genetic drift
6) planetary: impacts are the result of many gravitational wells and/or impacts interacting with a massive object in motion.

Another point is that causality does not explicitly mean intention or thought. This is why I do not consider the "first cause" argument to be a compelling one even in the absence of causality for everything.

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

Yeah, but your arguments don't translate to a picture ;)

I think most of us agree that these old arguments have been long dispelled by the science. The only point I was trying to make is that it isn't even a logical argument, let alone one based in scientific truth.

The point about causality is one that should be made over and over again - cause and intent are not the same thing. Even the law stresses that point.

Harvey said...

"I think most of us agree that these old arguments have been long dispelled by the science."

As you have apparently noted on another blog, Eric doesn't agree.
He insists that we non-believers have been shown that no "true Scotsman" ("serious" philosophers) thinks that "everything requires a cause therefore God" is illogical. He then suggests that even though he has shown us and/or we have conceded this argument, that we fall back on it just as theists fall back on "but why are there still monkeys?" This strikes me as a good example of Eric's tactic of obfuscation of the real issues in question, which can be expressed as "If you canot blind them with your logic, baffle them with your bullshit!"

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

I think you are spot on with that Harvey. Theologians seem more and more desperate these days to show us all how ignorant we are when we stick to empirical evidence.

Harvey said...

Since empirical evidence continues to be lacking for the existance of any God or creator and even though lack of evidence cannot "disprove" said existance, theists are forced to argue that "proof" of God must be on non-scientific grounds. We all continue to wait for any such "proof", although I am at a loss to understand what form any such "proof" can possibly take. Logic alone has failed, since we have repeatedly seen demonstrated that such algorhythms, although validly logical, can be no more "true" than the assumptions upon which they are based.

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

I agree - what chaps me is this new smug tactic of stating that if you don't agree with them it means you haven't studied enough. In the Middle ages there wasn't much else to read besides theology. Now there's a lot more interesting stuff. At some point you just have to say, that if theism requires that much effort and contortion to grasp, there can't be anything to it, and cut your losses.

pboyfloyd said...

"..if you don't agree with them it means you haven't studied enough."

This is 'old made new again'. Man_Of_Mettl who used to post on Dinesh D'Souza's posts no matter how blatantly D'Souza would mix his religious view with his right wing ideology, would say, "You're just not understanding, read the Bible through.", then, "Now read it through from a 'believing point of view'.", then, "Now read it through with guidance from the Holy Spirit!", and so on.

How circular is that? Believe the Bible by reading it while believing it is true, that's not too much to ask surely?

And I don't think that MoM was being sarcastic or flippant or facetious, I honestly believe that he couldn't see the problem.

How about Professor Alan Roebuck's "go with your intuition" schtick, while of course he slips in as much sophistry as he can pack in.

Seriously they must be laughing so hard most typos are due to the tears clouding their vision.

pboyfloyd said...

A comedian was telling us his day-dream, where he burst out laughing and was held responsible for that. He was standing at a market stall with muffins on display and could picture himself eyeballing the sales-lady(likely baker too) while smashing the muffins with his fist.

Just the ridiculous idea of the lady being astonished at this grown man smashing the muffins with his fist while staring into her eyes wondering if she must know him, must have 'done him wrong', her now speechless as he destroys her merchandise, caused him to burst into laughter.

Now this, to me, is like ManOfMettl, Eric, Alan Roebuck telling us, with a 'straight face', in all sincerity, that we ought to read the Bible to believe it 'while 'believing it' or that his argument is rational and coherent or that we have to forget all that and go with our intuition, as if it is so obvious to them, just as easy as that for them, except, as Deacon Duncan points out that their God doesn't 'show up in real life' for them or us.