• **
  • 12 Posts
    • View Profile
The origin isn't the cause or the beginning.
« on: July 01, 2018, 02:47:04 pm »
Posted by: John8904
the reduction absurdum:
There is the hypothesis that everything needs a cause to exist. But caused by what?

This quetion requires an answer in terms of a what or a thing, but this just creates the need for an infinite regression, no?

Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd:

It is only absurd in the sense of being a contradiction, but not in the sense that it is a counterweight to being.  The opposite of being is nothingness. so in that sense you can't have one without the other.

all of reality is dependant – but dependant on nothing?!?!

If reality is dependent upon something, then how does one place that thing outside of reality?  If it's outside of, or the opposite of reality then it isn't real.  The reality of the whole isn't the whole of reality.  If the whole of reality is objective, then there is no room or place for subjective reality.  If the whole of reality were subjective, then there would be no objective reality. Nothing would exist.  Existence is fundamental to the existence of things, but things needn't exist for existence to be.  Existence is an intransitive verb which requires no object.

There must be an un-caused being as this is absurd.

I think it is just as likely, if not moreso; that un=caused being originates in non being, or perhaps they emerge simultaneously like polarity. Words like "origin", "cause", and " beginning" are synonymous with regards to things, but not necessarily prior to the existence of things.  The origin or source of being needn't have a cause or beginning, and it doesn't seem to make sense to say that nothing began to exist, or that there is a cause for nothing.

Re: The origin isn't the cause or the beginning.
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2018, 10:59:44 pm »
This is not a logical argument disproving the existence offal Creator, but rather a series of claims for which no supporting points are provided.  Usually the norm for those who oppose the existence of such a Being.

For now, I will tackle two such unsupported claims:

(1) that it is "hypothesis" that everything which exists needs a cause; and

(2) it is "absurd" to believe in the existence of a "non-caused" Creator.

As regards the first, an entity which is at a given time potentially extant cannot become actually extant unless it is caused to by means of a chance event or intentional act. Once caused by the one or other to exist, that entity experiences a beginning of its actual existence. 

As regards the second, those who claim such an Entity as God cannot exist without beginning (e. g., always exists) sound rather speciesist.  In the present sensitive political climate in which we live, this has been added to the growing list of prejudices against individuals and groups--whether human or animal.  It sounds a little too human-centered to presume with the authority of a judge that a Species of Entities like God cannot exist--that is, without beginning--just because we do or can not.  (Or, maybe It is, indeed, a Species of One.)  A "Species" of What? I would dare say of psychokinetic Being(s).  It sounds highly judgmental and presumptuous to believe such is logically impossible!  I know Gene Roddenberry was an avowed Atheist, but one thing I did respect about him was that he wove into the fabric or his shows the possibility that all sorts of different types of B/beings might exist everywhere, at all epochs of cosmological history, at all levels.

Maybe more atheists should follow his balanced example.