When one circumvents the idea of an infinite regress by postulating God not having needed a cause, as he was eternal, is this sensical?
I was listening to a debate with William Lane Craig and he seemed to imply something to that effect; namely that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe by virtue of the fact that all effects need causes, and as there wasn't much else around (by definition) prior to the inception of the universe, hypothesizing a God is the most reasonable- and perhaps a necessary- position.
Typically this would seem to be a silly claim, as one could revert to the problem of infinite regress, but if one claims that God is exempt from the cause and effect process because he did not come into being (he is not an effect), as he is eternal, how would a religious critic answer this? It seems to make sense to me intuitively.. if something doesn't come into being, i.e., if there is no effect, we needn't look for a cause. If it is true God is eternal, wouldn't he by definition not need a cause?
I've been an atheist for some time now, not sure why this never occurred to me.. I was familiar with the infinite regress problem but what if someone simply asserts that God doesn't need a cause because he is eternal?
Thanks
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
We just had a young kid on the forum that advocated that very same Craig theory. Of course, it's nonsense, but Craig isn't trying to sell books to you or me.
You might just as well say the universe is eternal and doesn't need a cause. Why is there a need for god, apart from it's importance to the business plans of people like William S. Crackpot?
Isn't it widely accepted that there was a beginning to the universe, though, in the big bang? I'm looking for a legitimate rebuttal to his idea that God doesn't need a cause because he is eternal. Normally, yes, I think we could simply assert the universe's timeless nature, but as far as I was aware ''science'' had by large agreed that there was a beginning to the universe?
@im1825114 "Isn't it widely accepted that there was a beginning to the universe, though, in the big bang?"
There are various cosmological models. Look up "oscillating universe," "multiverse," "brane theory" for example. Or look on Youtube for videos by astronomers like Brian Cox or Neil deGrasse Tyson, or physicists like Jim Al-Khalili. They've produced some great material about the beginning and end of the universe, and I don't recall any of them referring to god (other than in jokes maybe).
im1825114,
The Big Bang Theory is silly on a cosmic scale. While stars go supernova in their own version of a "Big Bang" it's illogical on a cosmic scale. http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/fallofbigbang/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/B...
Well nothing about religion is sensical, so.. :p
If you postulate the need for an eternal god why not postulate the need for many gods? Each god having its own problem with infinite regress. Why not postulate the need for an eternal Cheshire Cat?
Right; if you are just going to make shit up, might as well go for it and postulate a bunch of crazy stuff.
This is the causal or the cosmological argument. It is a common one. Google it, there are many powerful rebuttals to it.
I personally favor one of the more simple ones because your common nutcase theist may just understand it:
"While it is impossible to prove or disprove the causal argument, let's say, for the sake of argument you are right, (the theist,) In absolutely no way does this prove that your particular god exist, in fact it is evidence that your god does not exist. (For the reason you stated above, any many more.) The flying spaghetti monster god makes more sense in the causal argument then your god does."
I love the flying spaghetti monster arguments. Some of my theist friends were debating me over that very thing, saying that the creator of the universe can't be a man-made object like spaghetti, since the universe existed before the idea of pasta. I simply said that the first creators of pasta were endowed with the noodly light of the creator and began making edible monuments to his existence. Hard to disprove bullshit, huh? Marinara was used as an item of repentance. Garlic bread is to ward off infidels with your bad breath. Colanders are holy sacraments. It all fits. More than the Christian ethic, in my opinion.
Being a former member (and living with other former members) of the Pastafarian movement, I have to concur.
The ad infinitum re/progressive argument is the earliest known dodge. It deflects logic's inquisition entirely and, simultaneously, puts man in conflict with much of his way of resolving his own existence. If logic be man's gift, amongst all, from a deity then one must postulate that such a tool the psyche employs in all things in life must be placed into a state of disuse whenever questioning the existence, much less the origin, of that deity. Anything less is a blasphemy.
A god gives man the resolve and tools to sort out his life. His god is part of that life and, moreover, the focal point of it. In all manner of life that logic should not be used to pony up questions about the god itself.
Apologists, by that slight of hand, give safe harbor to many such inexplicable aspects of their soldiering as unspoken directives they embrace. This safely distances them from doubts that exist within and from without their own ranks.
Logic is the first thing theology dispenses with entirely and then selectively retrieves it to apply rigorously in areas no one can argue, usually unknowns, and takes a stand behind it as if it was the word of their god(s).
It's a frightfully boundless use of deception, witnessed in the historicity of its bloodshed, because whole for-profit industries built upon it are at risk otherwise.
Again, the imagination harnesses thought, people and power. Imagination has always been and will continue to be the god this topic addresses.
There is a difference in eloquence and the syntactical/grammatical gymnastics which make your writing largely abstruse. As someone who does a ton of reading and did excessive amounts of writing for a significant portion of my life, I would highly recommend you lose the "I'm going to write in the most arcane and highfalutin way I possibly can" shtick and actually try to communicate with human beings.It is very easy for an intelligent person to discern between beautiful prose with a clear, mellifluous flow, and something written by a twat who spends two minutes constructing every sentence with the goal of properly articulating a thought coming second to esotericism and convolution. If I picked up a book written in such a way I'd laugh, write an amazon review calling you a pretentious idiot, and never pick up anything by you again. Much of what you wrote in that post borders on incoherence, and I'm happy I don't ever have to read another sentence you write. Jesus Christ.
William is wrong. I firmly believe that the first cause was of course Universe Farting Unicorns - UFUs. Why is my hypothesis any better or worse than Billy's?