Um, no. Claim of knowledge in an area where you lack knowledge adds no basis for the claim to stand on unless evidence can back it up.
im still not getting the 'intelligent design' argument
what the fuck makes something an intelligent design and what makes a simple design
whats even considered an intelligent design
If you see a clock in a deserted island you infer there was someone there. But you do it simply because you have never seen a clock in a deserted island (or in wild places in general) and it's not something one would expect to find in nature.
The same does not apply to the universe and an 'ordered reality', since you have never actually seen a 'chaotic universe'. Therefore, you cannot make the analogy with the clock inference.
This analogy fails because it's comparing something that must have had a designer to something that can be the result of natural processes.
Intelligent Design is a crock of shit.
And all of those are just macro effects, there's the shit that operates on quantum levels that frankly just don't make any fucking sense, AT ALL, but they still happen.
There is no such thing as an ordered reality, there is just complete chaos that we impose the illusion of order on.
so basically intelligent design refers to OMG SOMETHING THAT DOESNT SEEM NORMAL APPEARED THERE THEREFORE GOD DID IT
why dont we go ahead and say "THE FOOTPRINTS STAY ON THE MOON FOR YEARS BECAUSE MOON DUST IS SPIKE SHAPED WHICH ALLOWS IT TO STAY TOGETHER THEREFORE GOD"
i also love how people say the big bang apparently randomly happened
how are we to know there was absolutely nothing before the big bang
there could have been particles and atoms floating around before eventually something happened to cause the big bang
this is a vsauce video explaining the situation:
there's no chance of finding 0 particles per cubic centimeter in deep space.
We have no idea what was before the big bang but we know everything was compressed into a stupidly tiny volume.
And there are particles all over space simply because it's the aftermath of a super rapid expansion.
Also you keep saying cubic square, that means jack shit man, you have no actual unit of measurement there, a cubic square what? millimetre? metre? astronomical unit? banana?
I can back it up with the fact that the universe is still expanding after the big bang and the CMBR.
Seriously how else are they supposed to get where they are?
So every finite and contingent being has a cause. What's a "being"? A living organism? Sentient life? Be more specific. Also, what's contingent in this case? The same as conditional? Induced? If it's the latter, your first claim is pretty rubbish because you already define that which you claim to have a cause as having a cause. You limit the being by calling it finite too, why's that? And alltogether, can you actually prove that contingent beings have a cause? Is there any data or evidence? This is the thing, unless we move out of philosophy, it's all just claims.
Let's go to your second point. An infinite chain of causes and effects cannot occur. I'm not even gonna ask for data or proof of this because it's not what's wrong with the argument, so I'll go over to your last point, Therefore, there had to be a necessary (not caused) being.
This is only true if your first point is true. So please prove that every finite and contingent being has a cause, after you've properly defined all those terms, and then you have a point.
Elementary particles (electrons, photons, quarks, etc.) come into existence from nothing as described by quantum fluctuation and Baryogenesis. Elementary particles are the simplest form of matter and following the laws of physics they bond together to create more complex forms of matter such as hadrons (protons and neutrons), which then bond together to form other more complex forms of matter such as elements as described by nucleosynthesis, elements bond together to create even more complex forms of matter and, as described by abiogenesis, simple organic matter (amino acids) under certain conditions, these simple forms of organic matter than combine to form more complex forms of organic matter as described by evolution.
Do I really have to post that in capital letters? Isn't bold enough?I posted:
A contingent being is a being that does not contain in his essence the reason for his existence. This is related to the principle of sufficient reason. (You can't explain the existence of that being by simply describing all his characteristics.)
Ultimately, as no being be know contain in his essence the reason for his own existence, for the principle of sufficient reason to hold, there's got to be a being who we don't know and contains in his essence the reason for his own existence, as the existence of none of the other beings could be explained even if we assume an infinite chain.
The key to disproving this argument is in the concept of a contingent and a necessary existence. This idea is wrong because it implies that existence can be predicated into something. The proposition "X exists" doesn't imply anything about the concept of 'X', it is just merely saying that 'X' is in some place. Otherwise one could say the "Timmy, the existent monkey, exists" is a tautological proposition and therefore can't be false. That is the true refutation.
This, of course, implies saying that the principle of sufficient reason is false. (And of course, it is.)
Wait. This "This idea is wrong because it implies that existence can be predicated into something. The proposition "X exists" doesn't imply anything about the concept of 'X', it is just merely saying that 'X' is in some place. Otherwise one could say the "Timmy, the existent monkey, exists" is a tautological proposition and therefore can't be false. That is the true refutation." I supposed to be the "correct" refutation of the cosmological argument?
What the fuck are you on about. I hope you don't think you just proved to us how stupid we all are because we couldn't refute your version of that argument. You're yet to sufficiently define what a being is in proper terms, because entity is the same fucking thing and I'd like to hear how you define an entity. You also might want to consider explaining what essence is.
And on the principle of sufficient reason, of course the argument relies on that, I was gonna tell you that it's bullshit after you made your point in proper language but apparently you think yourself clever by not doing that and instead refuting yourself. Good fucking job.
I know how to disprove your argument. You say "not in the way anyone here would disprove it" as if you know the entire course of the debate here from start to finish. I'm sure others here know how to do it as well. It's not as hard and clever as you think. You've done a horrible job of phrasing the cosmological argument and you interpret my request for you to clear it up as some kind of admission to my inability to disprove it. Which is bullshit. I actually asked you if you could prove that finite and contingent beings have a cause(which you admitted you can't and I knew you couldn't), I disproved your argument in the exact way you claim I'm not able to. So how are you sitting here on your high horse pretending you're the only person who figured this out.
Second, a being is anything that exists. The concept of being is sufficiently defined for the argument. I don't think that any further definition of being is needed. It's not as if you didn't understood the concept of being I was using, did you?
The same goes for my argument; you can prove the cosmological argument wrong if you find a contingent being (practically anything) that is known not to have a cause and the refutation would have been made. The problem is that you didn't do it that way.
Second, I don't think I am the only one that has realized this. Actually, many people proved the cosmological argument to be fallacious or proved their concepts to have no real meaning. But people now think that they can do the same without any knowledge of philosophy, use the straw-man fallacy and ask "and where did God come from"? When it is not pertinent to ask this question since the argument proposes already there must be a being that is not contingent and, therefore, does not have a cause.
You just explained that the argument is fallacious because the principle of sufficient reason is bullshit. The "and where did god come from" points to exactly that fallacy by showing that the proposition of the argument (there must be a being that is not contingent and, therefore, does not have a cause.) is wrong. What's your point?
Actually, what's your point in general here? Are you here to tell other people they're not as good in philosophy as you are?
To make that question, as you said, one would need to disprove the principle of sufficient reason first. And in disproving it one would have disproved the whole cosmological argument. I don't see the point in making that question if you already disproved the argument.
And, really, I just want to show how (agnostic) atheism is really more humble than deism, pantheism or theism, since you really don't make it seem that way.
Disproving the principle of sufficient reason would mean that we can't really have a complete explanation of things. The consequences is that we may actually not know whether the universe was caused or whether there was an ultimate cause. This refutation implies that humans can't possibly know that.
But many people (who dogmatically believe in what this or that scientist says) thinks that there, in fact, is a way of reaching the 'ultimate explanation' of the universe. I hate those, because they make atheism seem a lot more arrogant even than most positions that sustain the existence of some kind of god.
The only reason he thinks the universe is "perfection" is because he happens to live on the one planet with life within billions of miles. Our universe is not at all perfection.
It urks me to no end how believers of god can sit back and say that "god created us." when we live in such a hideous world filled with hate, violence, disease, rape and war.
If god did exist, what kind of fucked up bastard is he?
Isn't he supposed to love us, each equally, unconditionally?
Then it is contradicted by the idea of going to hell?
God is not evil, good is good. Since he's also the authority of absolute morality, anything he does is by definition good. The reason evil exists is because he gave the creatures he created free will. That's also why Hell exists. It was originally created to punish the fallen angel lucifer(essentially Satan) for rebelling against god. Later, the humans rebelled against god, in the christian case through eating that apple thing. So we're all sinners because we resisted against god and he is so graceful as to allow us to redeem ourselves by worshipping him.
Now obviously there are a few things wrong with this, I tried to explain those to Venom but he is of the opinion that when Adam ate of the Apple, all of existence became sinful. That's his way of justifying things like hereditary sin aka why should we pay for the sins of our ancestors.
There's of course the responsiblity that god has for all of this, because he created us with the ability to sin and the knowledge that we would sin, so he is punishing us for something he made our nature to do, but Venom rejected this and claims god is free of responsibility because we were given free will.
That's the essence of it, as far as I gather. And I understand how people could believe that, really. It's just a pretty sad belief and has some dangerous implications.
Oh and to matsta, yeah, you're obviously better than both sides of the argument, we get it, pro philosopher. I don't recall claiming science could provide the ultimate answer. And if you want to prove some point of your own, how about you actually make that point instead of representing stuff you don't believe in and refuting yourself to show how much smarter you are.
I don't need to argue with people that are intentionally dishonest about their position to ridicule their opponent instead of actually arguing.
Edit: You know, matsta, I had the suspicion that you're some kind of newly graduated philosophy student that's really proud of his mindstick waving and thinks he's smarter than everyone else because he read some big books by some old big guys with long beards. And I usually don't do this, but I looked at your previous posts, and yeah, you are that guy. You're that kind of guy that spends 2 hours talking about what a word means because you're so lost in high-up discussion with terms you have no concept of that you can't even talk to normal people anymore because you've forgotten what words mean. It shows when you think that entity is sufficient to explain the central point of the argument you put forth. That's probably also why you're so high up. Howard Bloom once said that if you can't explain something in kindergarden terms, you didn't understand it. Big up, socrates.
Science can't prove anything... Reality is relative to the available knowledge we posses at a specific time.
Even if god does it exist, or even if it created the universe, it does not matter, since it doesnt interact with us anymore to our knowledge
Recently, a lot of people had been using this question as an 'easy exit' instead of actually arguing with supporters of this argument. And when you're told that that question ignores the very conclusion of the argument you use the straw-man fallacy and ridicule them (in an even worst way than I supposedly ridiculed you). And then you call them arrogant?
If I want something is that both sides of the argument (not just the religious) start actually debating instead of just mocking their opponents. I don't know how that, to your eyes, is trying to show that I'm 'smarter than everyone else'. (and BTW, I'm not.)
The question doesn't ignore that, it challenges that by reminding you that point 1 declared the conclusion impossible. And of course an objection is gonna disagree with the conclusion, otherwise it wouldn't be an objection.
Oh and also, you say you want both sides of the argument (as if you're somewhere in the middle) to "start debating". This is what I mean when I say you think you're smarter. You don't define what "actually debating" is. Maybe you're wrong when you say the question isn't a valid objection, and then what? Both sides were actually debating all along? But you don't consider that, you think everyone else is just doing it wrong.
And by the way, that's what I meant in the previous post too, in every thread you post in MD, people don't understand what you're saying, or at least you claim that.
Wow, are you just ignoring my previous posts or what? Proposition 3 doesn't claim that the object that isn't caused is finite and it claims it is not contingent. (Contingent things are not necessary by definition.)I posted:
And I already defined those terms in the previous posts. I don't know how you can still sustain that (3) contradicts (1).
Ok, I'm sorry if it was not clear enough, I think I need to explain things a bit.
The terms 'contingent' and 'necessary' are actually very intuitive when applied to propositions. When applied this way 'necessary' mean that the proposition can't be false, because it's falsehood would imply a contradiction. For example, the proposition "all straight lines are straight" is necessary, because saying that there is a straight line what is not straight would imply contradicting oneself. On the other side, propositions such as "all swans are white" or "all objects that have a mass are affected by gravity" are contingent, because its falsehood would not imply a contradiction. (There is nothing in the subject "swans" or "massive objects" than implies what is predicated to them.)
Similarly, the ones that sustain that these terms can be applied to the existence of objects think they can be applied this way:
A contingent object is an object whose existence is contingent. That means that it might exist but it can, as well, not exist. For example, my laptop exists but it can as well not exist. Proposition one implies that every object that is contingent needs to have a cause to exist. (For example, my laptop needs to be fabricated to 'exist' as such.)
A necessary object is an object that cannot not exist. Of course supporters of the cosmological argument sustain that we have never encountered this kind of object on our lives. But the concept of a necessary object is that its essence (in what the object consists or, if you want to see it like that, its ‘definition’) includes its existence (that the object exists). Thus the non-existence of said object would imply a contradiction.
The cosmological argument doesn't actually argue the existence of from, let's say its 'definition', because men supposedly can't understand God, and therefore can't define him. It argues that there must exist some object/entity whose essence includes that said entity exists. But, of course, we don't know that essence.
It argues that based on the principle of sufficient reason. As contingent objects do not contain in the essence the reason for their existence, we can't explain their existence by simply saying that they exist. We could try to explain the existence of said a contingent object A by saying that A was caused by B. But if B is contingent then we need to explain the existence of B by saying that it was caused by C and so on. For the principle of sufficient reason to be true there needs to be an object whose essence contains the reason for his existence (a necessary object) for an explanation of the existence of A to be complete.
So the claims made by the cosmological argument are right by definition, what's the point then?
Oh and your terms are obviously not intuitive when you can't get your point across.
But is the question "where did god come from" not pointing out that Proposition 1 is false? Or at least that necessary things don't exist?
I mean if that's not a valid objection, how are you gonna disprove the argument? All you're doing is claiming that Proposition 1 is false. The "where did god come from?" question is claiming that the conclusion is false. Where's the difference?
The error arises when you replace (P1) with "everything has a cause", and that is using the straw-man fallacy, because (P1) doesn't say that.
Alright. I get it now.
I don't see how god is a necessary being whatsoever. It's not necessarily the case that all effects have causes, so there's no need whatsoever of a necessary being creating them. The first premise of the contingency argument is just plain false.
BTW, do you sustain that the terms 'contingent' and 'necessary' can be applied to entities?
If you're claiming something is 'necessary', it's much much stronger than saying 'true in all actual cases'. If something is necessarily, it's inconceivable that it's not the case in any possible world. A counterexample would disprove it, but it's not required. If it's conceivably not the case, it's not necessary. Just because every massive object in this world has gravitational pull, it doesn't mean it's necessarily the case that all massive objects do.
Never said that (1) can be takes as necessarily true.I posted:
PD: But, of course, if you sustain (1) to be something not true a priori you would be denying the cosmological argument its 'deductive' certainty.