Debunking a Creator

[dawei]

It's just as understandable as what caused infinite cause and effect. There is no absolute beginning, either way. Creator or not. With the Creator scenario, nothing would have caused the uncaused Creator to cause...it would have always been its nature.

 

Isn't infinite cause and effect contradictory to an uncaused Creator?

 

Why is the Creator exempt from this infinite rule?

 

While this is traditionally a theist view, its premise is self-contradictory and some might call it a false premise. So how is it NOT a false premise?

[Aetherous]

I only know that it appears that it matters to you that his premise is wrong and yours is right... and he holds the same thought in reverse.

 

You guys can try to convince the other as you want.

 

I don't actually have a premise. Only used examples and explanation to show how his premise was false. I'm not making an argument for the existence of a Creator. It's not actually argument A vs argument B. It's argument A versus logical analysis.

[RongzomFan]

I don't actually have a premise. Only used examples and explanation to show how his premise was false. I'm not making an argument for the existence of a Creator. It's not actually argument A vs argument B. It's argument A versus logical analysis.

 

You central false premise is that your uncaused Creator changes, and something must cause than change.

[dawei]

There are no beginnings. Its an infinite regression.

 

like steady-state or oscillating state?

[RongzomFan]

like steady-state or oscillating state?

 

Like Dependent Origination

[Aetherous]

Isn't infinite cause and effect contradictory to an uncaused Creator?

 

Not necessarily. There could have been infinite cause and effect without beginning, as well as an eternal (uncaused) Creator being that brings about new creations, both at the same time. It's possible.

 

Why is the Creator exempt from this infinite rule?

 

It isn't.

 

While this is traditionally a theist view, its premise is self-contradictory and some might call it a false premise. So how is it NOT a false premise?

 

What premise?

 

By the way, this is how very basic logic works in forming an argument:

 

Premise A ) The sky appears blue some days to me.

Premise B ) The sky doesn't appear blue some days to me.

Conclusion C ) The sky doesn't always appear blue to me.

 

This is an absolute truth, that the sky doesn't always appear blue to me...AKA a sound argument. The argument requires 2 premises and a conclusion for it to be valid. A valid argument might not be true. For it to be "sound", or "true", or "logical", or "rational", both premises must be infallibly true.

 

Here's an example of an argument based on false premises (statements which are questionable and possibly not true):

 

A ) The sky is blue.

B ) Sometimes the sky doesn't appear blue, due to clouds or lack of sun.

C ) The sky is always blue despite appearances.

 

It's questionable whether the sky is literally blue...it could just be an appearance of blue. So the premise is false, and the argument is unsound...the entire thing lacks truth. It's not a logical argument, and we should find a better premise...or try to prove the premise through other premises. For instance...

 

A ) The sky is made up of ______

B ) ____ is blue

C ) The sky is blue.

 

If those premises were absolutely true, then the conclusion (which is the premise for the other argument) would be true (so we could then use it to formulate a sound argument).

 

Maybe that will clear up some discussion when using these terms. Or maybe this was all understood already.

Edited December 7, 2013 by turtle shell

[RongzomFan]

I don't actually have a premise. Only used examples and explanation to show how his premise was false.

 

You are free to show my premises are false.

 

But don't use stuff that makes zero sense.

[Aetherous]

You central false premise is that your uncaused Creator changes, and something must cause than change.

 

Nope. I'm not forming any argument, such as saying that a Creator exists and trying to prove it, so I don't have any premises. I was only dismantling your argument that a Creator doesn't exist. Also, I don't understand this sentence you used or think it represents what I said.

 

You are free to show my premises are false.

 

But don't use stuff that makes zero sense.

 

No offense, but if something doesn't make sense to you, that's on your end. It makes sense over here, which is why I posted it. Repeating what I said likely won't help, and it's annoying behavior.

 

Sometimes certain ideas require more than a couple minutes to take hold.

Edited December 7, 2013 by turtle shell

[RongzomFan]

Nope. I'm not forming any argument, such as saying that a Creator exists and trying to prove it, so I don't have any premises. I was only dismantling your argument that a Creator doesn't exist. Also, I don't understand this sentence you used or think it represents what I said.

 

You can't dismantle an argument with stuff that doesn't make sense.

[dawei]

Not necessarily. There could have been infinite cause and effect without beginning, as well as an eternal (uncaused) Creator being that brings about new creations, both at the same time. It's possible.

 

So this above is possible...

 

but remove the creator and when one is left with only inifinite cause and effect without beginning AND without a creator... that latter state is not possible?

 

or your just saying that the latter does not debunk a Creator? ( I take the meaning as no need for a Creator or second creations).

[Aetherous]

So this above is possible...

 

but remove the creator and when one is left with only inifinite cause and effect without beginning AND without a creator... that latter state is not possible?

 

or your just saying that the latter does not debunk a Creator? ( I take the meaning as no need for a Creator or second creations).

 

I didn't say that infinite cause and effect was impossible...I actually said that it's an option, and is equally hard to fathom.

 

True, it doesn't necessarily debunk a Creator.

[Stosh]

Another false premise would be that there must be a creator because things exist.. because they may always have existed....and needing to postulate a creator which always existed instead .. for which there is no data independent from things existing..is not a conclusion based on observable phenomena.

[RongzomFan]

Fine. So do you admit your Creator is changing?

 

Yes or no.

 

 

Bump for a response.

 

Turtle Shell refuses to answer this.

[dawei]

I didn't say that infinite cause and effect was impossible...I actually said that it's an option, and is equally hard to fathom.

 

True, it doesn't necessarily debunk a Creator.

 

Maybe I am then lost on what your arguing against.

 

The OP stated this infinite cause and effect has no place for a Creator.

 

Your trying to counter there is a place for a Creator?

 

Just put the Creator into the equation instead of taking it out?

[RongzomFan]

Nope. I'm not forming any argument, such as saying that a Creator exists and trying to prove it, so I don't have any premises. I was only dismantling your argument that a Creator doesn't exist. Also, I don't understand this sentence you used or think it represents what I said.

 

 

No offense, but if something doesn't make sense to you, that's on your end. It makes sense over here, which is why I posted it. Repeating what I said likely won't help, and it's annoying behavior.

 

Sometimes certain ideas require more than a couple minutes to take hold.

 

What you are saying isn't complicated.

 

You are saying an uncaused Creator causes.

 

Wow, what a novel 3,000 year old idea!

[Aetherous]

 

Maybe I am then lost on what your arguing against.

 

The OP stated this infinite cause and effect has no place for a Creator.

 

Your trying to counter there is a place for a Creator?

 

Just put the Creator into the equation instead of taking it out?

 

I argued against the idea that 'an uncaused being can't possibly interact with a caused universe' (not RongzomFan's exact words but that was basically it). To see how I argued against this, I know this is kind of annoying to hear, but it's best to reread those posts.

Also I suppose I did argue against the idea that 'with infinite cause and effect there's no place for a Creator'. It's not a sound argument, unless you're saying that the Creator was the first cause of all cause and effect...then by the definition of "infinite" there would be no room for that Creator.

Edited December 7, 2013 by turtle shell

[ralis]

I give Turtle shell much credit for really trying to explain his reasoning. This is an extremely difficult subject. Rongzom and Simple are doing nothing but badgering.

[RongzomFan]

I give Turtle shell much credit for really trying to explain his reasoning. This is an extremely difficult subject. Rongzom and Simple are doing nothing but badgering.

 

Turtle Shell refuses to even answer whether his Creator changes or not.

 

Stop the bullshit ralis.

[RongzomFan]

I give Turtle shell much credit for really trying to explain his reasoning. This is an extremely difficult subject. Rongzom and Simple are doing nothing but badgering.

 

There is nothing difficult with Turtle Shell's position.

 

It is basic Kalam cosmology.

 

Its been debunked in atheist circles for decades.

Edited December 7, 2013 by RongzomFan

[ralis]

There is nothing difficult with Turtle Shell's position.

 

It is basic Kalam cosmology.

 

Its been debunked in atheist circles for decades.

 

Why not elaborate in detail in your own words as opposed to appealing to authority.

[dawei]

 

I argued against the idea that 'an uncaused being can't possibly interact with a caused universe' (not RongzomFan's exact words but that was basically it). To see how I argued against this, I know this is kind of annoying to hear, but it's best to reread those posts.

 

Also I suppose I did argue against the idea that 'with infinite cause and effect there's no place for a Creator'. It's not a sound argument, unless you're saying that the Creator was the first cause of all cause and effect...then by the definition of "infinite" there would be no room for that Creator.

 

Ok... while I questioned that opening idea, and as there is the common Theist view of an 'un-caused first cause' , I put together exactly what your stating in the second part.

 

Now that he has said 'Like Dependent Origination', I see this is his meaning. So by the definition of not just infinite [regression of cause and effect] but also of dependent origination, everything is interdependent and must therefore have a cause. Ergo, you cannot have something 'un-caused' in the mix or something outside of the mix.

 

I am not saying that this debunks the creator. It may simply be a theory wherein there is no place for a creator. And I get back to my 'needs assessment': This has created a scenario which does not need a creator until maybe the issue of 'no beginning' is explored as that is a 'need' (a beginning) which exert some argument for a Creator.

 

Added: I re-read one post and see you were considering this last issue of beginnings but not pushing it:

"Well, even if God doesn't exist, we have to come to terms with why and how this apparent world manifests"

Edited December 7, 2013 by dawei

[RongzomFan]

Why not elaborate in detail in your own words as opposed to appealing to authority.

 

If Turtle Shell's Creator changes (which he refuses to answer), what causes that change?

[RongzomFan]

Ergo, you cannot have something 'un-caused' in the mix or something outside of the mix.

 

Exactly.

[Z3N]

What about this then?

 

Like the awareness being aware of awareness for the first time, the universe being aware of the universe, as thou turning around and facing a mirror.

 

“What am I?........”

 

Boooooommmmm!!!!!!!!! (Big bang)

 

“I will just unfold and find out.”

 

Like stones hitting the surface of a pond shattering the stillness, like shattering the oneness into trillions and trillions of little pieces.

 

In consequence to this cause and effect was quantified which on this scale is like quantum computations in a chaotic state of all possibility. Giving rise to intelligence and evolution because of quantum reduction, “what am I?..i must find out!”

 

 

“I am the universe! The animating force! The Tao” (the universe as we know it)

 

 

Peace, balance, harmony and the universe as we know it with everything else, just a ripple in consequence to this, an echo.

The universe inside of the universe, the Tao inside of the Tao, consciousness inside of consciousness and so on add infinity.

 

Humans and any other life forms throughout the cosmos are going through this same process of “what am I?”

 

Like the white fuzz that is left over after the big bang.

 

Oh! even solar systems and planets hence life, you know Gaia.

 

Well it goes something along those lines anyway because language is limited therefore cannot be known, you need to step out of self.

 

Get out of your bodies and step into the quantum.

 

The universe has already been and gone.

 

Is this what you humans mean by a god or creator?

 

To the natural mystic there is no need to know.

[gatito]

Now, after 44 pages - this being the 700th post in this thread: -

1. Does everyone understand how a tautological argument works?
2. Was that a waste of time (i.e. meaningless)?
3. Do you think that the initial proposition was an expresion of SatChitAnanda (i.e God, the Tao, the Truth etc.) or was it an expression of ignorance (of the the Truth)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

NB: Tautological rhetoric: -

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29

(://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29)