Say what, mjbp?

>>Pericles he has a point. Of course I’m biased by the mind reading of my mind where I’m told I am trying to do something that I’m not.<<

I agree, you are biased. No need to explain.

But also, do please try to keep up.

>>Anyway it is a change that you aren’t hunting down Boazy and have turned your attention elsewhere. Boazy must be pleased. Or does the increased thread limit allow you to do that contemporaneously?<<

Leaving aside for a moment the slur that I "hunt down" anybody, the reason that Boaz is presently unavailable for discussion is that he has been suspended from the Forum. Not, I hasten to point out, for anything he directed at me.

Incidentally, your last piece of "reasoning" strikes me as particularly flimsy.

>>Theists have argued: 1. Something is caused.<<

They may well have argued this.

But they fail to provide any evidence for it.

Why is it necessary - except of course for the sole purpose to bring God into the equaltion - to postulate a "cause", in the sense of "causing something to happen".

Why could it not equally be the case that it simply "is"?

AJ Philips,

See you then. Thank you for the discussion.

Yep, thought that would be a tough one, mjpb.

No cause, no first cause, no God.

Simple when you think about it.

Hi Pericles,

The Boazy comment was meant to be friendly sorry if it caused offence.

I said:

"Theists have argued:

1. Something is caused.
2. It is impossible for everything to be caused (there can’t be an infinite regress of causes)
3. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause."

You said:

"Incidentally, your last piece of "reasoning" strikes me as particularly flimsy...They may well have argued this.

But they fail to provide any evidence for it.

Why is it necessary - except of course for the sole purpose to bring God into the equaltion - to postulate a "cause", in the sense of "causing something to happen".

Why could it not equally be the case that it simply "is"?"

Yes it is a tough one. That is why I typed an answer this morning and then thought I should consider it more.

I saw your post this morning and wondered if it inevitably accepted the reasoning but used a different uncaused cause or if there is some way of having an "is" without that reasoning - an immediate uncaused is. That was something I didn't immediately get my head around so I was planning to sleep on it while I did other things and get back to about now or tomorrow at latest and answer one way or another.

I don't believe it is fair to say the reasoning is flimsy, that there is no evidence and to an extent that it is only necessary sole purpose of bringing God into things.

The evidence available is that natural systems have causes. Step one seems to be consistent with experience. It doesn't seem coherent to have an infinite series of cogs turning themselves based on what we have observed in nature. Therefore step 2 also seems to be founded on the available evidence.

Step 3 seems to be the logical corollary. The uncaused cause logically seems to have to be outside the system. That doesn't mean there couldn't simply be a natural "is" that is somehow uncaused but there is no evidence and it does complicate things because you have to keep going back to increasingly unevidenced and complicated hypotheses. Therefore the logic seems sound. That doesn't mean it is a closed question just that dismissing it as "flimsy" seems unfair.

The "is" used to be the Universe. It just always had been as an alternative to theistic creation. Then the Big Bang was discovered. That has generated new hypotheses of how an "is" could have been present that is further back (eg. multiverses and string theory). But there is no evidence that natural systems can be eternal. Indeed isn't there a thermodynamic law from which it can be inferred that if the universe or a pre-existing matter and energy mix had been around infinitely long it would have run out of energy?

I agree that a natural "is" would be the alternative but, to my knowledge, working on the available evidence and taking it to its logical conclusion it points to an uncaused cause that isn't a natural cause. That leads to your assertion that it is constructed to support God. I think Thomas Aquinas developed a version of the argument originally intending to use it as a proof of God so to that extent it is intended to support God but if getting to an uncaused cause outside of the system is a logical conclusion and fits with the evidence then wouldn't it be a necessary conclusion as a matter of logic rather than just necessary to bring in God?

I appreciate that you have now given it some thought, mjpb.

The "flimsy" part was that you had based your sequence of logic on an untested thought. Now you are starting to address it, which can only be a good thing.

None of what I pointed out, by the way, is in any way intended to establish the non-existence of a supreme being. Because, let's face it, if there were such an entity, they would themselves "just be", would they not?

Otherwise you would have to come up with a theory on the creation of God. Which, I suggest, might be a touch trickier than determining the physical beginnings of our particular universe.

>>The evidence available is that natural systems have causes.<<

Except, of course, for a "first" one. But this should not be surprising, as we do not have the ability yet to test anything that does not have a cause - i.e., all science is directed to finding a cause, but only in an environment where there is one to be found.

So I think you might now be able to see why I suggested that the only possible reason to insist that there is an original "cause", as opposed to entertain the alternate possibility of "just being", would be to introduce the concept of God.

>>It doesn't seem coherent to have an infinite series of cogs turning themselves based on what we have observed in nature.<<

Why ever not? You only find that confusing because you have programmed into your brain the need for a cause.

>>But there is no evidence that natural systems can be eternal.<<

Where would you look for such evidence?

>>Indeed isn't there a thermodynamic law from which it can be inferred that if the universe or a pre-existing matter and energy mix had been around infinitely long it would have run out of energy?<<

If you're referring to the second law, any "inference" is purely metaphorical. Anything to do with thermodynamics can be expressed in a mathematical equation. That's all it is - mathematical equations.

No metaphors allowed.