The argument from necessity.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
That wipes out most of the religions of the world, since christianity, islam and judaism are all based on it. Pray, tell us, which god it is that you espouse? We are waiting here, all aquiver, for the revelation.
"God is Love. Love requires no cause but is the cause, in the sense of the ultimate source, of all things. The contingent must be contingent upon something else and in that sense 'caused'."
Philosopher Daniel Dennett has coined the term "deepity" to describe statements such as this one. Appears on the surface to be profound but is as hollow as a Hallmark greeting card. Edgar answer this question - Why did love create childhood leukemia?
Thank you. I have never heard of 'deepity'. I certainly agree that statements such as 'God is Love' are only the plenitude of meaning when _after_ we have struggled greatly in the detail of the world. But, also, more that ultimates can ony be rightly described as contradictory or at least contrary. Innocence allows both great profundity and great ignorance.
Love, in the sense that I intend it here, is utterly beyond all description. But one image is worth noting. It functions oppositely to the material. The more you give it away, the more you have. The less you give it away, the less you have.
My Creator God sacrificed all manifest existence in putting forth Love as the world substance. Nothing whatsoever was designed. For design is a form of knowledge which requires a co-existent material to be designed. Love requires nothing but itself, yet allows all the possible. Beyond good and evil, without Love neither of these could exist. And they only exist as opposed parts of disintegrated Love.
Why was childhood leukaemia created? I am sorry. I have no idea but it has to be to do with created beings becoming opposed.
"Why was childhood leukaemia created? I am sorry. I have no idea but it has to be to do with created beings becoming opposed."
You say you have no idea and then answer with this concept of "created beings becoming opposed." Is that your answer ? If it is and Love is the source of all things then I rephrase my question. Why did Love create opposition to created beings?
No it is not an answer. I cannot answer the original question. To the re-phrased question, "Why did Love create opposition to created beings?" Firstly, I do not claim that it did because it is equally possible that creations create their own opposition. (The best it does is set a context in which I'm inclined think an answer might exist.)
But, secondly, why does there need to be a question "Why?"? Does a child need a reason to play?
I am travelling for the next 2 days or so and will not be able to make replies. But as the originator is now happy with the replies given to the original question then may I suggest that if we are to continue this conversation then we might start a new thread with a clearly defined subject matter. I have taken the substance far from the original question.
My opinions are not common place and I thank you challenging them and making me think.
Bye for now.
Just got Armin's book "Why There is no God" and I see he has a chapter on God is Love, God is Energy. I shall read it before returning. Thanks again.
A new thread sounds good. Just for further thought : My question about Love creating leukemia [opposition] is seeking to address this statement ;
"God is Love. Love requires no cause but is the cause, in the sense of the ultimate source, of all things."
I thank you for all your comments which, indeed, pretty much nail it from a set of different angles. I especially liked the comment
"Instead of just claiming that the universe might always have existed(big bang being a cycle), they are claiming that the universe was created by a sloppy loving god and then that this loving creator somehow always existed."
In fact this is also how I see it: the notion of causality is clearly different from the notion of creation ex nihilo. Causality works within the universe, or, in other words, with regard with all which is the case.
If we state that all has a cause, then also god needs a cause, or else the premise would be false.
If we state that it is false that all has a cause, then we can also imagine that reality is eternal and works in cycles, since the notion of causality when applied to reality as a whole simply makes no sense.
A second point is this: induction tells us that, since ALL of explained natural phenomena have been explained by means of natural facts, it is very likely to conclude that the universe as well, if it does have a cause, it has got a natural cause.
As many of you said, the appeal to a non physical entity in order to explain a physical universe creates more problems than it solves.
there is also the nice reply Russell gave to bishop Copleston, where Russell argues that the very notion of necessary being is nonsense, since necessity is a property of propositions, not of things.
Question for you, why does causality have to be considered? To me, the basic premise of religion and/or belief in a supernatural force is to explain that which humans didn't/don't yet understand. Humans have an uncanny ability to learn and decipher the world around us, and the more we comprehend the less need to explain the unexplainable.
I like to use a geometric example: at first you see a point, then you see that point is on a line, then you realize that line is in fact on a plane or even a more complex multidimensional shape. The more dimensions that are revealed, the more interesting it becomes. And like these geometric shapes, the beginning, middle and end is randomly assigned by a coordinate system. As humans, we try to define this coordinate system in terms of our own understanding when quite possibly the point 0,0,0,0,0,... may not exist at all.
In fact, as professor Russell said, the very notion of a necessary being or necessary cause is meaningless. Necessity is a property of propositions, not of things.
If causality occurs only withing the physical space of nature, in terms of transformation and change, then it is not clear how something could be a cause from the outside.
If causality can be extended outside the physical space of nature (provided that such an expression, "outside", is even meaningful), then we would have to explain how a cause which does not partake of our reality can produce it ex nihilo.
Such an explanation, it seems to me, fails both empirically and logically.
To put it simply, either causality (not creation as nihilo) is a relation which meaningfully holds at space time level, meaning, within what we call the physical space of nature, OR it also holds outside of space and time, whatever it means, which could be even ok.
However, the challenge for the supporter of causality is to prove somehow that causality within nature is contingent, whatever it means, whereas causality from outside nature to produce nature is necessary and, in turn, such external cause is not itself to the law of necessary causality.
In short, too many unwarranted premises it seems to me.
I think I still see a way to salvage the necessity argument to some extent, but I shall hold it for later and, I am afraid, will not do much.
Perhaps the argument our colleague here is possibly going to show to us might cast some light upon the necessity for an external prime cause.
I would not recommend to hold our breath though.
A cause/ effect universe implies a creator... a Force or a God. Therefore the creationists are right. To remove God we must remove and the God/Force and the eons ago beginning date for creation.
We don't need to remove anything except from the heads of ignorant people.
"eons ago beginning date for creation."
Which scientific paper claims a date of creation?
You might find it in a holy book but when you actually start reading scientific papers you will find that they give the estimated date of the big bang, etc...
No one claimed the bib bang is the creation of everything that exists except ignorant people that can't understand a scientific paper.
Nowhere in there does it say the beginning of all things/creation is this date.
That type of arrogance and nonsense we keep it in our local church.
I have to say that you spout so much utter rubbish that you'd need a hole the size of Texas to accomodate it all.
eeee wrong answer, devoid of any logic....neeeext :)
Cause and effect have a meaning INSIDE the universe. To ask what is a cause OUTSIDE the universe is nonsense. Sorry.
You need to prove:
1) that the universe is NOT eternal
2) that it must have a cause
3) that such cause is NOT physical
4) that such cause is a god.
5) that such god, in turn, needs no cause.
good luck :)