Atheists are in an enviable position. While the rest of us must live by and adhere to the laws of science, atheists can ignore these same laws at will. They're even celebrated by other atheists for ignoring scientific laws. Take for example The Law of First Cause.
"The universe is just there and that's all."
Bertrand Russel and Frederick Copleston, "The Existence of God," in John Hick, ed., "The Existence of God,"(New York: Macmillan, 1964), 175
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
The Law of First Cause?
What a joke...
You meant "everything that exists has a cause" right?
If that's what you mean, you are stuck with the same problem as usual, if your god exists, it has a cause, or else it's special pleading, and you need to drop the "everything that exists has a cause"...
Oh and since this post has "Science" in its title, why don't you finally answer the question:
"Should we reject YEC's idea that the Earth could possibly be 6 to 10 thousands year old?"
i.e. Do you personnaly believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old or not? Do you consider that possible or not?
You meant "everything that exists has a cause" right?
No, that is not what I meant.
MAKARIOS:
No, that is not what I meant.
"The Law of First Cause"
Is that suppose to be a scientific law then?
You meant "everything that exists has a cause" right?
============
It is not special pleading because, now listen carefully, it's
"Everything that, BEGINS to exist."
Two different sentences,
Two different meanings.
Everything that exits has a cause.
INCORRECT
Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.
CORRECT
I wonder if perhaps you live with someone who might be able to help you a hand with this?
More atheists wouldn't help. A room full of atheists wouldn't help. But if you have anyone, even a three year old who isn't an atheist, he or she could parse these sentences for you and then you won't have to ask the same incoherent questions over and over again.
Another day, another theist who refuses to accept that the burden of proof is on them, and instead spend their time criticising scientific explanations of natural events as incomplete and lacking.
Go go God of the Gaps!
"Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause."
... and everything that exists began to exist... except GOD.
NICE, much better!
Thanks for filling the rest of your comment with pointless insults.
Heh, I laughed at the last two paragraphs of this because I was so expecting YHWH.
http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/equilibrium03.html
There is no Law of First Cause, there is only the assertion of the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Notwithstanding separate issues with the second premise, there's a major problem with the first: it's not based on anything at all.
According to the laws of conservation of mass and energy (which by contrast are actual scientific laws), matter and energy is not created or destroyed. In recorded history, and as far as we can tell in any way, nothing has ever begun to exist except in abstract ways, such as when ice is "created" when water freezes or energy is "created" by digesting Corn Flakes. Everything that makes up a "new" thing was already there.
Therefore the only instance one could use of anything truly beginning to exist in the sense you mean is the beginning of the universe, where it may actually have happened as far as we know.
Generalising this single (possible) instance into a "Law" is almost indefensible, but immediately using the same "Law" to establish that same event begs the question and is downright sophistic.
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause."
That we consistently observe this to be true is critically important because scientific naturalists demand that NOTHING can be believed without consistent observation and verification.
There has NEVER been a witness to an exception to this rule - never. Every single attempt to promote alternatives to this premise have only reinforced its truth.
You would think then that atheists would have the highest motivation to accept this premise. Not these guys. If it brings us closer to God as Cause, science is out the window. Amazing. The level of hypocrisy is breath-taking.
What's even more shocking is that if we were talking about matter or the universe being eternal, there wouldn't be a peep of discontent.
True or False: Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of it's existence; either in its Necessity (it can't not exist) or in an external cause.
I just realised that this comment works pretty much ALL of the time Rod talks about science.
I quote myself:
"Another day, another theist who refuses to accept that the burden of proof is on them, and instead spends their time criticising scientific explanations of natural events as incomplete and lacking.
Go go God of the Gaps!"
MAKARIOS: scientific naturalists demand that NOTHING can be believed without consistent observation and verification
What the hell are you talking about Rod? Are you once more trying to say that scientists, hum, sorry, atheists believe that everything came from nothing? How many times do people need to tell you that this is NOT the case?
Anyway, what's ironic is that your comment Rod came AFTER SmartLX's comment that explained why we can't even truly talk of anything beginning to exist.
But that's way too technical for you Rod, isn't it?
Let's answer your question anyway:
True or False: Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of it's existence;
TRUE,
oh wait you were not done...
either in its Necessity (it can't not exist) or in an external cause.
FALSE,
because there are other possibilities, such as external causes, or internal causes, a thing changing by itself perhaps... I don't know really, I hate trying to give options where it's not even necessary or useful to the discussion, just to prove an idiot why his false dichotomy is wrong.
Mak, what I'm saying is that there's never been a witness to an example of the statement in action OR an exception to it, because nothing we know of begins to exist in the same way that you believe the universe did. It's a "law" supported by just one supposed event, and used for nothing except to support that same event in turn. It's worthless.
I did tell you I wouldn't worry about having to believe even if the universe were proven to have had a beginning. Richard Dawkins and Alan Guth think it did, and it hasn't led them to faith.
If "scientific naturalists demand that NOTHING can be believed without consistent observation and verification", why do they variously accept the Big Bang theory, or evolution, or different abiogenesis hypotheses? Because there are other kinds of evidence.
I’m saying that for any theory or premise to be accepted, it must meet with, among other things, consistent observation and verification.
Atheists agree with this EXCEPT when what is consistently observed and verified (eg. Whatever begins to exist has a case) conflicts with what they WANT to believe. Then atheists find that science isn’t important at all. You know this to be true because your own life and the lives of the other guys who reply here prove it to be true.
============
SmartLX's comment"
It’s just that, a comment from someone who doesn’t know that the first law only applies to what came into being after the BB.
=============
Anything that begins to exist has an explanation for its existence either in its Necessity (it can't not exist) or in an external cause.
Other possibilities:
. external causes - I think I just said that
. internal causes - Something caused itself to exist? Or did it exist before it existed so it could make itself exist? - Sorry, I’m laughing too hard.
. a thing changing by itself perhaps - Again it brought itself into being by changing itself. C'mon, this is pitiful
. I don't know really - this is where you should have stopped. You don’t know because there aren’t any other choices
. I hate trying to give options They aren’t useful to the conversation.
Not useful? This is what the conversation is about! Anything that begins to exist has an explanation for it’s existence; either in its necessity (it can’t NOT exist) or in an external cause.
And since the universe is not necessary that means that the universe had a cause that was external to itself.
Must be nice, Mak, to make all these statements about how atheists think and what opinions they have, when obviously you don't understand any of it. Because if you understood any of it, you'd be an atheist too!
You just repeat over and over the same flawed, disproven statements about atheists and agnostics, in the hopes that new readers will fall for the trap. Once we've read one of your posts, we've read them all!
You just HATE atheists so much. Why?
And here come the extra conditions. I often say that whatever constraints you place on the universe in order to necessitate God, you immediately have to break in order to allow God.
So the "law" only applies to what came into being after the Big Bang? Fine, if we take that as gospel then it leads us to two conclusions. One, it doesn't apply to the Big Bang itself and therefore the Big Bang didn't necessarily need a cause. Two, since as I said nothing has actually come into being SINCE the Big Bang (and you haven't volunteered anything to contradict this) the "law" doesn't apply to anything at all. As I said, it's worthless.
MAKARIOS:
". internal causes - Something caused itself to exist? Or did it exist before it existed so it could make itself exist? - Sorry, I’m laughing too hard.
"
I will reply only to that one because it sums it all.
A self-replicating molecule is something that is the cause of its own existence, it the sense that the new copy is a new entity that was caused by a previous "self", so yes, it did cause iteself to exist, without an external direct cause. But at the same time, what's more important is that no matter nor energy was created during that process, and that's what SmartLX is trying to point out, that your own definition of bringing into existence is flawed to suit your own needs.
When does something begins to exist? At what point exactly? If I pull one of my hair and drop it on the floor, did I just cause the hair to exist because it's not attached to my body anymore? Am I the external cause in that case? But I did not create my own hair, so what's the cause of my hair to exist then?
It's really hard to even make sense of this post, but other commenters have already addressed those issues. So your position is that atheists ignore science, yet is perfectly acceptable as a theist to believe in creation, an eternal, ephemeral, metaphysical deity, the plagues of Egypt, and all the miracles from Moses to Jesus in the Bible? What about all these violations of science? Please, if you are going to make brash, unfounded accusations, at least do so without simultaneously exposing your own hypocrisy.
It's atheists that claim they don't believe anything unless it's been "proven" by the scientific method of inquiry.
Christians make no such claims - therefore no hypocrisy here, at least not on this issue.
Post a Comment