Feathered T-Rex

[jim stone]

If the argument makes it plausible that there is a non-Contingent Creator, why should that be worthless? Because we don't have all the details? Even if we couldn't have all the details, it seems to me that much would be worth knowing.

But the argument is contingent on our accepting that there is something that counts as a First Cause. It doesn't actually provide any reason for accepting that idea. It just says "maybe it could be like this". I don't find that particularly plausible.

Why is it obvious that something that exists neither by accident nor by the agency of other things is something we can't learn more about?

Right. My error. Thanks. It does, however, seem to imply a level of existence outside cause and effect, which is certainly beyond my poor comprehension. Is it likely that we could understand the internal workings (if any) of such an alien entity?

Also if there is a Creator, might we not learn more of the details of how he/she/it made the world by studying the world on the hypothesis that it was created?

Perhaps, but unless we know for sure that there was a Creator, it hardly seems worth the effort as a practical project.
.[/quote]

No, the version of the Cosmological Argument I gave does attempt to provide some support for the hypothesis of a creator. It doesn't just
say 'maybe it could be that way.' nor is it contingent on our accepting
that there is a creator. Its basic form is this: 'Here's something that needs explaining; here's the only possible explanation hence the
best explanation. Generally the fact that an explanation provides
the best explanation for a phenomenon that needs explaining
is a good reason to believe that it may well be true. Therefore
we have have a good reason to accept THIS explanation.
If so we have
a reason to study the world on the hypothesis that it was
created. Generally we don't have to be sure of hypotheses
before we study things on the supposition that they are true;
if there is a good reason to believe them, that's enough.

Also why is the Creator beyond cause and effect? Might it not
cause events in the world and be affected by them and work
'internally' by causation? That it's existence isn't an effect
of anything else doesn't seem to preclude this. Best

[Darwin]

No, the version of the Cosmological Argument I gave does attempt to provide some support for the hypothesis of a creator. It doesn't just say 'maybe it could be that way.' nor is it contingent on our accepting that there is a creator. Its basic form is this: 'Here's something that needs explaining; here's the only possible explanation hence the best explanation.

But we are given no reason to believe that there actually is an explanation.

In fact, there is no reason to believe that anything in the universe is "contingent" in any ultimate sense. In an eternal universe of unescapable cause and effect, each stage is a necessary result of what went before.

I think that the need for a beginning is a psychological fact about humans. To me, a Creator just looks like a personification of the eternal aspect of the universe that somehow makes it more palatable. We don't mind a mystery if it has a somewhat human face.

Generally the fact that an explanation provides the best explanation for a phenomenon that needs explaining is a good reason to believe that it may well be true. Therefore we have have a good reason to accept THIS explanation. If so we have a reason to study the world on the hypothesis that it was created. Generally we don't have to be sure of hypotheses before we study things on the supposition that they are true; if there is a good reason to believe them, that's enough.

Again, I see no good reason to believe that the universe was created. Creation explains no fact about the universe that is not explained equally well by eternal existence--less, in a way, because you now have to explain all about the Creator--motivation, intentions, etc.

Also why is the Creator beyond cause and effect? Might it not cause events in the world and be affected by them and work 'internally' by causation? That it's existence isn't an effect of anything else doesn't seem to preclude this.

I suppose so. So, what do we have so far?

1. The Creator exists neither by accident nor by the agency of other things.

2. The Creator has created something new--the universe. (Out of nothing, or out of its own pre-existing parts? How? And why?)

3. The Creator may or may not be subject to external and/or internal causation. (Would internal causation imply that the Creator is made up of interacting parts?)

Barring revelation, where do we look for the answers to the questions in 2 and 3? (Since I still see no reason to accept the idea that the universe was created, this begins to feel a bit like one of those alternate history discussions about how WW2 might have gone if J. Edgar Hoover had paid attention to warnings about a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.)

[Walden]

I confess that the chief reason why I prefer evolution to
intelligent design isn't scientific; it's that I've seen lots
and lots of nature in action and if there's a designer
he/she/it/they were unspeakably cruel, it seems
to me. Not nice, at the least. So I hope there was no designer; things
are bad enough already.

It's the age old question, "Why would a benevolent and loving God bestow such lovely, lovely, plumage on a T-rex, and then throw a big old rock in the Gulf of Mexico, to wipe him out?"

[Joseph E. Smith]

....I'm thinking it may have been a 'durability test' that went a touch astray...

[Jack]

The problem is why it needs to entail subjective suffering. Surely an entity that is clever enough to design everything that exists should be clever enough to work out ways around that.

I may be out of my league here, but that has never stopped me from opening my mouth and making a fool out of myself before, so why start now? :roll: Anyway, how can one try to understand the philosophical aspects of any religious beliefs without trying to understand the theological aspects as well? It seems to me that there is more to this issue than what is being thrown around here. In religion (thus in understanding God) philosophy and theology go hand in hand. It is impossible to understand one without the other. Which I would tend to think the whole concept of suffering is elusive here. What are all of your thoughts?

In my humble opinion, the fields of psychology, philosophy, and religion are the same thing with different concentrations by different people in different areas. At the very least, they overlap a lot and are extremely interconnected.

Of course, you'll find psychologists who say they are anti-religion and religious figures who are anti-psychology, but they're not really. Same with philosophy. Even atheists have their own set of values, ways of seeing the world, and ways of relating and functioning, so they have their own religions in non-religion. Religion (or apparent lack of religion) makes humans human. Animals have language. Animals have culture, and animals can learn. No animals have religion.

[emmline]

It's the age old question, "Why would a benevolent and loving God bestow such lovely, lovely, plumage on a T-rex, and then throw a big old rock in the Gulf of Mexico, to wipe him out?"

Thanks Walden. That's the question. Yeah, why?
The rest of the last couple pages of this thread are just so much blather and concept-dissection worship. It's not about whether you make a comprehensible point, it's about whether there are holes in the verbal structure of your argument that I can call into question.

So, Emm, go hang out in a less long-winded thread. Yes, I will thanks.

edit to say...yeah,yeah, it's easy to call things blather when your mind is really too cluttered and fluffy to sort through them. So, really, what I'm doing is going to hang out in a dumb thread.

[Wombat]

It's the age old question, "Why would a benevolent and loving God bestow such lovely, lovely, plumage on a T-rex, and then throw a big old rock in the Gulf of Mexico, to wipe him out?"

Thanks Walden. That's the question. Yeah, why?
The rest of the last couple pages of this thread are just so much blather and concept-dissection worship. It's not about whether you make a comprehensible point, it's about whether there are holes in the verbal structure of your argument that I can call into question.

So, Emm, go hang out in a less long-winded thread. Yes, I will thanks.

edit to say...yeah,yeah, it's easy to call things blather when your mind is really too cluttered and fluffy to sort through them. So, really, what I'm doing is going to hang out in a dumb thread.

Although I've been trained to play this game, I've never seen an attempt to prove the existence of God which I could take seriously. I'm inclined to think that it has more to do with faith, or lack of faith, than with reason.

If I recall, this all started with the claim that there must be a reason why contingent beings came into existence. This could be true without it being even a tiny bit probable that human beings could ever discover it or that they could fathom it even if they discovered it. I distrust the reduction of issues that look as though they should be fiendishly difficult to the level of a silly parlour game—that's what the ontological argument looks like to me for example.

I'm not against cosmology but I really think our ultimate theories can only be about that part of the universe our epistemic powers can penetrate. There is no saying how extensive that is.

[GaryKelly]

Animals have language. Animals have culture, and animals can learn. No animals have religion.

How do you know?

[susnfx]

My dog worships me.

[Will O'B]

delete

[jim stone]

But we are given no reason to believe that there actually is an explanation.

In fact, there is no reason to believe that anything in the universe is "contingent" in any ultimate sense. In an eternal universe of unescapable cause and effect, each stage is a necessary result of what went before.


This was from 'our' Darwin. Mike, 'inference to the best explanation'
is common in science--this is the idea that we are justified
in accepting the best explanation to a phenomenon that
needs explaining. The Cosmo Argument maintains that
the activity of a non-Contingent Being is the best explanation
of the fact that there are some contingent beings rather
than none at all. That is a reason to accept that explanation.

Even if the universe
is eternal, each stage being a necessary result of what
went before, it is still
full of contingent beings--that is, beings that exist either by chance
or due to the agency of other things, hence needn't have been.
Remember the infinite series of kangaroos. NONE of them
need have existed, there need have been no such series--so the question: Why are there some
kangaroos rather than noneat all ? remains. And one can't advert
to kangaroos to answer it. But the same question remains
if there is an infinite series of Contingent Beings, and
we cannot advert to Contingent Beings to answer it.
So, if there is an explanation, it must appeal to the
agency of somehting non-contingent.

The point is that the Cosmo Argument works just the same
if the universe existed eternally. Whether one accepts or rejects
the argument, it's worth appreciating what the argument
is. It is NOT the argument that the universe must have
a beginning.

On the other hand, that the U apparently
does have a beginning may well provide support for
the idea of a Creator outside the natural order. Let there
be light! Bang. But that isn't the Cosmological Argument.

Emmline, this is what is sometimes called Natural Theology,
forgive me if I'm telling what you already know.
The idea is that reasoning scientifically from the facts of
nature, we can provide good reasons to believe in God.
Religion is good science. Scientific reasoning is pretty
obscure sometimes and hard to follow, and may look
like wordgames--but when one actually engages obscure
science that looks like word games (E =MC2) it usually is something worth considering. There is difficult and arcane stuff worth considering,
and the effort to support religion by appeal to the natural
order is like this, I submit--considerably more than empty
intellectualizing--if one closes with it.

Walden, you mention the possibility that the natural order
looks like it's swimming in suffering because it is fallen.
A question I have is When did it fall? Most of the suffering
that's happened appears to have preceded human beings
by hundreds of millions of years. Do you think
humans were here from the first? Not a rhetorical question. Best

[Jack]

Animals have language. Animals have culture, and animals can learn. No animals have religion.

How do you know?

I observe.

[Lorenzo]

Two people throughout history certainly deserve our respect: the person who invented Creation, and the person who discovered the opposite.

[Lorenzo]

Animals have language. Animals have culture, and animals can learn. No animals have religion.

How do you know?

I observe.

What was your sample size?

[Walden]

Two people throughout history certainly deserve our respect: the person who invented Creation, and the person who discovered the opposite.

Heh heh heh heh