Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

On Bertrand Russell’s argument against the First Cause Argument for God's Existence.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    God is infinite. Causes are all finite and temporal. Effects are all finite and temporal. And only need finite causes.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by crepuscule View Post
      Believe what you will, but I'll stick to good ol' logic. Our choices and consequent actions begin to exist. According to the argument from first cause, everything that began to exist can be traced back to a first cause. Then according to said argument, your prime mover is ultimately the only first cause for our choices and actions.
      A first cause does not exclude a real secondary cause in man's free will.

      JM

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        God is infinite. Causes are all finite and temporal.
        Therefore, God can cause nothing.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          Therefore, God can cause nothing.
          God can cause any possible. God cannot cause nothing. For nothing is not an effect of a cause.

          JM

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
            God can cause any possible. God cannot cause nothing. For nothing is not an effect of a cause.

            JM
            Neither could a god effect "nothing," so as to create "something" out of it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Neither could a god effect "nothing," so as to create "something" out of it.
              Correct. God does cause nothing as an effect. God can create something from nothng, from God's infinite power. That's why God is God and not the greatest creature beyond imagining. God can do what is beyond imagining, such as creation from nothing.

              JM

              Comment


              • #22
                Look who's back!
                Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                An exposition is presented below to expose the errors of Bertrand Russel’s arguments made against the first cause argument for God.

                The English philosopher, Bertrand Russell, proposed an argument against the first cause argument for God, in his book entitled, Why I Am Not a Christian. According to Stanford Encylcopedia, Russell is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians.

                Russell’s argument is presented in a series of short quotes and exposed as fallacious. Bertrand Russell states the following -

                Russell’s statement is fallacious. Philosophers disagree on many notions. For philosophers to change the meaning of cause does not provide any evidence against the argument for the first cause. Russell should have shown the reader how the new meaning of cause is more true and real and then shown how the new notion of cause makes the first cause argument unsound.
                No, he didn't need to do that, because his rejection of the first cause argument is not dependent on any change to the meaning of "cause".
                As Russell has not provided any evidence to support his claim, Russell has committed the error of the unsupported assertion. Also Russell does not continue with the use of his so called new notion of cause, thereby committing the fallacy of the irrelevant premise.
                "Irrelevant premise" may be an error, but it is not a fallacy since its use does not render an argument invalid.

                Apparently JM has learnt some new formal logic terms, but since he hasn't bother to learn what they mean, past experience suggests that the only "errors" he finds in Russell's argument will be his own.

                Edited to add: JM's claim that 'irrelevant premise' is a fallacy didn't stop him using irrelevant premises in his own argument, since he introduces that idea that causes are associated with delays, then promptly argues that it doesn't matter if that's not true.
                Last edited by Roy; 06-19-2017, 07:05 AM.
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
                MM on climate change: Looking at the historical temperature data in my region over the past ten years shows that temperatures have been stable ...

                mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                  A first cause does not exclude a real secondary cause in man's free will.

                  JM
                  Regardless of that being true, it still leaves you with the dilemma of whether such a secondary cause is causally linked to your first cause or not.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    Edited to add: JM's claim that 'irrelevant premise' is a fallacy didn't stop him using irrelevant premises in his own argument, since he introduces that idea that causes are associated with delays, then promptly argues that it doesn't matter if that's not true.
                    Your statement is ambiguous.

                    An infinite regress of causes is against the nature of cause, for if an infinite regress is posited, every member has the same deficiency in causation, and therefore no member is ever a cause. Or every member is assumed to be a caused cause within the series, but the infinite regress requires an infinite delay for each caused cause as having been caused by a prior, infinite regress. Hence due to the infinite delay implied in the infinite regress, no member is ever a caused cause. The delay is concerned with a series of causes causing now, therefore the delay is always now. Hence a delay that is always present is only ever a delay and not a cause happening now. Therefore, as no member in an infinite series is ever a cause, the infinite regress does not account for any cause. Therefore, the questions such as 'who made me?' and 'who made God?' are not solved by an appeal to any infinite regress.
                    Maybe what you have said is clarified below.

                    The apparent incompatibility between the two underlined statements given above arises from the truth of proper cause in a finite series, compared to the notion of proper cause in an infinite series. Proper cause is notionally true per se in both a finite and infinite series. But an infinite series is always false. A series of caused causes, that cause the existence or act of a creature are in accord with the notion of proper cause. Proper cause acts now to produce the proper effect. The house being built has its proper cause as the builder building the house. The being of a creature has its proper cause as God, who's essence is being, which causes the being of the creature now. Hence the statement, "The delay is concerned with a series of causes causing now, therefore the delay is always now", is true according to the notion of proper cause that always acts now.

                    The second statement "the infinite regress [of proper causes] requires an infinite delay" when understood in accord with proper cause, implies each cause in the series is acting chronologically now, from the nature of proper cause. But also, each member in the series is acting dependent upon a prior series of caused causes, which are ontologically prior to the ultimate effect. As there is an infinite series of causes which are ontologically prior to the ultimate effect, there is an ontological delay, whereby the caused causes are ontologically dependent upon a series in which each member of the series has the same ontological deficiency. The same deficiency of being in each member of the causal series results in a series which is infinitely deficient ontologically. The infinite deficiency in being in the series is an infinite ontological delay of proper causes that occurs always now. Hence the delay is always present. Hence an infinite series of proper causes is not possible.

                    JM

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by crepuscule View Post
                      Regardless of that being true, it still leaves you with the dilemma of whether such a secondary cause is causally linked to your first cause or not.
                      There is no dilemma. The secondary cause is always linked to the prime cause. There is a mystery as to how the two causes both cause together.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        There is no dilemma. The secondary cause is always linked to the prime cause. There is a mystery as to how the two causes both cause together.

                        JM
                        The dilemma is whether all actions of the secondary cause are ultimately caused by the first cause or not. Both of these true is not a mystery; it’s a contradiction.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by crepuscule View Post
                          The dilemma is whether all actions of the secondary cause are ultimately caused by the first cause or not. Both of these true is not a mystery; it’s a contradiction.
                          The prime cause is the prime cause of all secondary causes. The mystery is how does the prime cause a free agent, whilst acting in accord with the agents freedom? Hence the mystery.

                          JM

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                            The prime cause is the prime cause of all secondary causes. The mystery is how does the prime cause a free agent, whilst acting in accord with the agents freedom? Hence the mystery.

                            JM
                            But there is a contradiction. If your first cause is causing in accord with the agent’s choice (by free will), then its causing is caused, and consequently it’s not a first cause. That’s the definition of first cause, you see: not being caused by something else.


                            Put differently, you say:
                            - A free agent (=secondary cause) chooses
                            - He is caused to do so by a prime cause
                            - Who is acting in accord with free will choice of the agent
                            - Which in turn is caused by the prime cause
                            - Who in turn is acting on the free will choice of the agent
                            - Which in turn is caused by the prime cause
                            - et cetera

                            But this is worse than an infinite regression of causes – which you claim doesn’t even exist. Your reasoning is like baron Münchhausen pulling himself out of a mire.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              Your statement is ambiguous.
                              Unsupported assertion.

                              Are you going to admit that using an irrelevant premise is not a fallacy?
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
                              MM on climate change: Looking at the historical temperature data in my region over the past ten years shows that temperatures have been stable ...

                              mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                God is perfect and cannot be the author of a defect.
                                Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                The prime cause is the prime cause of all secondary causes.
                                1. God cannot be the author of a defect.
                                2. The prime cause is the prime cause of all secondary causes.
                                3. Defects exist.
                                4. At least one defect is not the prime cause.
                                5. From 3&4, there are defects that are secondary causes.
                                6. From 2&5, the prime cause is the prime cause of defects.
                                7. From 1&6, God is not the prime cause.

                                Which premise (1, 2, 3 or 4) would you like to reject?
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
                                MM on climate change: Looking at the historical temperature data in my region over the past ten years shows that temperatures have been stable ...

                                mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                60 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                299 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 11:52 AM
                                74 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 12:46 PM
                                60 responses
                                337 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X