In some argument for God, they say that everything in the universe that exists has a cause, and that this goes back and back until you get to the original "uncaused" entity that is God. They then go on to give their arguments as to why God is qualified to be "uncaused" unlike everything else.
What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused? Are these characteristics exclusive to God only? Are they exclusive to the Christian God only? Are they exclusive to some living self-aware entity only?
How to Define Characteristics of "uncaused"
Moderator: Moderators
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #31
[Replying to post 29 by The Tanager]
Here, let me correct one of your pre-18th century assumptions: The universe, nor anything in it has cause.
This is an artificial construct promoted by Christian propagandists.
Everything is made up of atoms.
All atoms, if they are not hydrogen are transformed from hydrogen.
Hydrogen is eternal, it requires no creation. It is the same now as it has ever been.
The Big Bang was a transformation of hydrogen from a dense state to the one we are familiar with.
Cause and uncaused are arbitrary criteria from an ignorant age.
Here, let me correct one of your pre-18th century assumptions: The universe, nor anything in it has cause.
This is an artificial construct promoted by Christian propagandists.
Everything is made up of atoms.
All atoms, if they are not hydrogen are transformed from hydrogen.
Hydrogen is eternal, it requires no creation. It is the same now as it has ever been.
The Big Bang was a transformation of hydrogen from a dense state to the one we are familiar with.
Cause and uncaused are arbitrary criteria from an ignorant age.
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5824
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 82 times
- Been thanked: 220 times
Post #32
[Replying to post 31 by Willum]
Christians aren't the only ones who believe in cause, of course. But I'd be open to hearing the evidence for why you believe these claims are true.
Christians aren't the only ones who believe in cause, of course. But I'd be open to hearing the evidence for why you believe these claims are true.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #33
[Replying to post 32 by The Tanager]
Err, do you mean proving that hydrogen doesn't change unless acted upon?
Kind of a silly thing to need to prove, but I am game, what don't you understand about everything being made up of hydrogen and atoms, and the mater is neither created nor destroyed, that needs to be proven to you?
I mean, non-religious folk have understood, if not applied this, for centuries now...
Err, do you mean proving that hydrogen doesn't change unless acted upon?
Kind of a silly thing to need to prove, but I am game, what don't you understand about everything being made up of hydrogen and atoms, and the mater is neither created nor destroyed, that needs to be proven to you?
I mean, non-religious folk have understood, if not applied this, for centuries now...
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5824
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 82 times
- Been thanked: 220 times
Post #34
I didn't grow up a Christian, went to public school and I don't remember learning the things the way you seem to talk about them. I could be horribly wrong or just misunderstanding your point. If it's simple to show, then you have an easy task. My call for evidence involves your claims that hydrogen is eternal and that nothing in the universe has cause.
Like if you are saying hydrogen is eternal because of the conservation of energy, say that and give your formulation of that law, preferably with a scientific source backing it up.
In the same way, why do you think science has shown that nothing has cause?
Like if you are saying hydrogen is eternal because of the conservation of energy, say that and give your formulation of that law, preferably with a scientific source backing it up.
In the same way, why do you think science has shown that nothing has cause?
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: How to Define Characteristics of "uncaused"
Post #35The argument does not really go backwards, as backwards reveals only an infinite regress. The argument states that an infinite regress is illogical; it follows that the empirical world cannot explain itself and therefore requires a supernatural explanation.jgh7 wrote: In some argument for God, they say that everything in the universe that exists has a cause, and that this goes back and back until you get to the original "uncaused" entity that is God. They then go on to give their arguments as to why God is qualified to be "uncaused" unlike everything else.
What are the characteristics necessary to be uncaused? Are these characteristics exclusive to God only? Are they exclusive to the Christian God only? Are they exclusive to some living self-aware entity only?
Characteristics of "uncaused" = its origin lies in itself, and, unlike nature, has no need for an explanation outside of itself.
As Aristotle was the first to propound this argument, clearly it does not belong to the Christian God. Aristotle's god did not have anything that we would recognize as personality, although it did "think about thinking"; whatever that means.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #36
[Replying to post 34 by The Tanager]
http://amrita.olabs.edu.in/?sub=73&brch=2&sim=118&cnt=1
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/ho ... est-282348
...and If you believe that all matter came into existence in the Big Bang, but an elegant explanation of Dark Matter is that this isn't true.
Why I think that science has shown nothing has cause is the conservation of mass.
Since matter is not growth and sun-rise(s), there is no creation of it. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed, therefore there is NO NEED for creation, except to justify a circular argument proving some also unnecessary God.
QED.
http://amrita.olabs.edu.in/?sub=73&brch=2&sim=118&cnt=1
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/ho ... est-282348
...and If you believe that all matter came into existence in the Big Bang, but an elegant explanation of Dark Matter is that this isn't true.
Why I think that science has shown nothing has cause is the conservation of mass.
Since matter is not growth and sun-rise(s), there is no creation of it. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed, therefore there is NO NEED for creation, except to justify a circular argument proving some also unnecessary God.
QED.
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5824
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 82 times
- Been thanked: 220 times
Post #37
[Replying to post 36 by Willum]
You have made two claims:
(1) Hydrogen is eternal.
One of the links you apparently give as support says hydrogen atoms are 13.7 billion years old and, thus, not eternal. But by your comments perhaps you are saying matter in general (not hydrogen) is eternal and the support I see given for that is "an elegant explanation of Dark Matter," but you don't actually give that explanation. If it is in that same link, summarize it for us (especially since I don't want to go through the free trial process to be able to read it).
(2) There is no such thing as cause.
You say the conservation of mass shows this because matter is transformed. Okay, but isn't that transformation caused by something? On top of that, one of us is really misunderstanding this law. My understanding of the law is that it says that in an isolated or closed system, the total amount of mass/matter/energy remains constant. The total amount already present is conserved.
Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol 1 gives that formulation. (see http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html). The encyclopedia Britannica gives this formulation. This lecture from a professor at NYU does the same: (http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/ad ... node4.html).
If those understandings are correct, then you (and others here) are misapplying the law when you want to talk about whether the closed system itself was eternal or created. You have to have a different argument for that.
You have made two claims:
(1) Hydrogen is eternal.
One of the links you apparently give as support says hydrogen atoms are 13.7 billion years old and, thus, not eternal. But by your comments perhaps you are saying matter in general (not hydrogen) is eternal and the support I see given for that is "an elegant explanation of Dark Matter," but you don't actually give that explanation. If it is in that same link, summarize it for us (especially since I don't want to go through the free trial process to be able to read it).
(2) There is no such thing as cause.
You say the conservation of mass shows this because matter is transformed. Okay, but isn't that transformation caused by something? On top of that, one of us is really misunderstanding this law. My understanding of the law is that it says that in an isolated or closed system, the total amount of mass/matter/energy remains constant. The total amount already present is conserved.
Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol 1 gives that formulation. (see http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html). The encyclopedia Britannica gives this formulation. This lecture from a professor at NYU does the same: (http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/ad ... node4.html).
If those understandings are correct, then you (and others here) are misapplying the law when you want to talk about whether the closed system itself was eternal or created. You have to have a different argument for that.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #38
[Replying to post 37 by The Tanager]
](*,)
I knew you'd say that.
So, rather than answer your questions, which just are "stump the dummy," in other words, just keep asking the 'dummy' to keep explaining himself until there isn't any more explanations... which there aren't.
Let's do it this way.
If something hasn't changed in 13.7 billion years, why would you expect it to change, or behave in a way that does explain your "uncaused."
Why it isn't obvious to you requires edification on my part. What don't you understand, what peice of the puzzle are you missing, just saying it doesn't, doesn't help me.
Why doesn't it?
"Applies to a closed system?"
Hi, we are talking about a single atom of hydrogen right now, once we have establish you understand one atom, we will talk about open and closed systems, since you obviously have very little grasp of what that means, and the assumptions it, in turn constrains a system to...
And before you march off in victory, yes I DO understand, and can explain, I just need to know the gaps in your understanding, because they are colossal, and I don't know where to begin.
](*,)
I knew you'd say that.
So, rather than answer your questions, which just are "stump the dummy," in other words, just keep asking the 'dummy' to keep explaining himself until there isn't any more explanations... which there aren't.
Let's do it this way.
If something hasn't changed in 13.7 billion years, why would you expect it to change, or behave in a way that does explain your "uncaused."
Why it isn't obvious to you requires edification on my part. What don't you understand, what peice of the puzzle are you missing, just saying it doesn't, doesn't help me.
Why doesn't it?
"Applies to a closed system?"
Hi, we are talking about a single atom of hydrogen right now, once we have establish you understand one atom, we will talk about open and closed systems, since you obviously have very little grasp of what that means, and the assumptions it, in turn constrains a system to...
And before you march off in victory, yes I DO understand, and can explain, I just need to know the gaps in your understanding, because they are colossal, and I don't know where to begin.
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5824
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 82 times
- Been thanked: 220 times
Post #39
[Replying to post 38 by Willum]
Just begin at the beginning, since you understand it so well and I'm such an idiot. Or you can continue to posture some more.
Just begin at the beginning, since you understand it so well and I'm such an idiot. Or you can continue to posture some more.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #40
[Replying to post 39 by The Tanager]
OK, if a single atom hydrogen has no reason to change, and has no cause to change, and has not changed in 13.7 billion years, why would anyone suspect if of changing ever, now or in the future?
If matter and energy are observed to be conserved, and there is no logical or even fantastic reason to believe otherwise, why should one consider it as a possibility when it does not lead to any reasonable conclusion, or describe anything?
OK, if a single atom hydrogen has no reason to change, and has no cause to change, and has not changed in 13.7 billion years, why would anyone suspect if of changing ever, now or in the future?
If matter and energy are observed to be conserved, and there is no logical or even fantastic reason to believe otherwise, why should one consider it as a possibility when it does not lead to any reasonable conclusion, or describe anything?
