A Cosmological Argument for God

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

First, the assumptions:

A: The Universe we live in and observe is finite in mass, age and dimensions.
B: Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.

Next, the syllogism:
1. Every finite and contingent entity has a cause.
2. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
3. Therefore, there must be a first cause, which is an action by an entity that is not contingent.

This entity is God.

I think that's enough to start off with. I'll look forward to Dave's rebuttal, when he has the time.

[RebelSnake]

It could be interesting "if" he cares to respond.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

It could be interesting "if" he cares to respond.

He could be otherwise occupied today. Polishing his telescope with his girlfriend(s) or some such...

[A Person]

That isn't very convincing, it only took one post, David took 400 so his argument must be 400 times better (or is it 1/400?).

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

That isn't very convincing, it only took one post, David took 400 so his argument must be 400 times better (or is it 1/400?).

I think that's a tiny bit unfair. At least 30 of his posts were time-dependant. Remove those and his exchange was a LOT more efficient. Erm... at least I think so.....

[Questioner]

I think that's a tiny bit unfair. At least 30 of his posts were time-dependant. Remove those and his exchange was a LOT more efficient. Erm... at least I think so.....

Ummm, what will the equation look like if you remove all the posts that consist entirely of meaningless insults?

[A Person]

I don't think David wants to play with the big boys (and girls) anymore. I would dearly love to see a video of the inter-church 'Debate'

"There were these like atheist posers an' they like totally claimed to know about God and I like totally wiped them off the board. Like it took them 4 days, to even understand like simple stuff. So that like proves God exists, 'cause he has like blinded their eyes to the TRUTH man."

"Ooooh Davie, you're my hero"

"You wanna go see my telescope?

[A Person]

I'm rather disappointed in Dave. I have read Aquinas 'proofs' and their modern variants and they seem so specious that I feel I must be missing something. I was actually looking forward to debating them with someone who really believed, understood and could defend them. After all what other use is there for an MA in Theology and Catechism from a Jesuit college? Aquinas seemed to have been a major part of the the syllabus .

So much of them depends on selective use of words hinting at analogies that are invalid or unstated "A creation must have a creator", "A painting cannot paint itself" Maybe, but please show that the universe is a creation or analogous to a painting"

"Whatever created the Universe must be outside space and time" - I have huge problems even visualising that and I suspect it's meaningless, likewise 'what existed before time started". We just don't have the words to express these concepts.

"Whatever caused the universe must be God" Excuse me! A forest fire is an extraordinarily complex living 'thing', releasing huge amounts of energy and often behaving with apparent malevolence. (No wonder people worshipped and feared Fire Gods) Yet it can be started (or created) by a tiny energy input sufficient to raise the temperature of a twig above a threshold. The spark is non-sentient, neither complex or powerful. Sometimes a forest fire will even cause itself if an accumulation of damp leaves spontaneously combusts. Is a forest fire a good analogy for the birth of the universe? Perhaps not, but it's better than a painting (or Paley's watch) and it does provide an example of how inanimate things do start in nature.

[Questioner]

...I have read Aquinas 'proofs' and their modern variants and they seem so specious that I feel I must be missing something. I was actually looking forward to debating them with someone who really believed, understood and could defend them.

The problem is that some people aren't satisfied with the faith thing. They forever need to try to prove God's existence. When they go that route, ultimately that always ends up with them trying to prove they are right and everybody who doesn't agree with them is wrong.

They go to enormous lengths to try and build logical proofs, but all fail on the weak foundation of an unwarranted assumption. When I ask these folks, what is wrong with having faith in God? Why isn't faith enough? They become unhappy with me. The ones I usually talk to are getting (or have recently got) this marvelous education (a PhD) in which they have taken enough philosophy and research methods courses to learn the rules of logic, deduction and induction, and by crackey, they are GOING to use it to prove God exists. (They are too naive to realize many others have tried that and failed).

Then we get the stupid ideas for dissertations. One guy tried to accuse me of being a "godless humanist atheist" and should be kicked off the faculty in a grievance because I wouldn't let him pursue the following question for his dissertation:
"are medications that have been blessed by a Catholic priest more effective than medications that have not been blessed?". (He also knew nothing about the protections of tenure )

His idea of "methodology" consisted of giving blessed medications free to a group of Catholics from his church, and having a control group that would have to buy their medications as usual from a pharmacy. When I told him that even if I would allow such a silly dissertation topic, he would have to use a double blind method such that all medications came from the same run. He would have to hire a licensed pharmacist to dispense the medications, and the pharmacist would put each medication in a sealed package with a code number representing the specific medication and whether or not it was blessed. Only the pharmacist would know which code number went with blessed versus unblessed medications. He would have to provide all medications in the study--to both experimental and control groups-and they would all get their medications in exactly the same way. And finally, neither the patient nor whoever dispensed the medication to the patient could know whether the patient was getting blessed or unblessed medications. Oh, and patients would have to be randomly assigned to either the blessed or unblessed medication group.

None of that made the student happy. Most particularly that he couldn't put all Catholic patients in his blessed group and unbelievers in the other group. I couldn't believe that teachers had let this guy get as far as the dissertation level. Somebody should have flunked him out of one of the research methods courses.

I never used to run into this kind of garbage! In the 1970s through the 1990s, nobody tried to inject their religion into their research programs. But now, it is getting kind of scary out there. Frankly, I'm rather glad I'll retire in a few years. If this trend continues, American higher education is going collapse into a quagmire of religious nonsense, along with the rest of the country.

[A Person]

I'd be interested in the results even IF he used his proposed methodology. I've been surprised by studies that apparently show that prayer doesn't even seem to have a placebo effect.

I wonder how the faithful would react if you informed them that the 'priest' mumbling over their pills was an atheist. Would they suddenly get a relapse?

[RebelSnake]

I'd be interested in the results even IF he used his proposed methodology. I've been surprised by studies that apparently show that prayer doesn't even seem to have a placebo effect.

I've seen in the news about studies like that and it doesn't surprise me at all. Why should talking to yourself have any kind of effect?

[A Person]

The placebo effect is real. If patients are convinced a treatment is effective - it will be.

This suggests that if patients were convinced that prayer were effective - it also would be.

Since many studies have shown that prayer is not effective, even when the patient knows that people are praying for them and they are believers, it suggests that at heart they know God doesn't answer that kind of prayer.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

The placebo effect is real. If patients are convinced a treatment is effective - it will be.

I should think that the mind's effect on a condition would be activated by a placebo only to the extent that the mind can be effective. Obviously, the mind can't cure lung cancer to any great extent for instance.

But the mind can do absolute wonders when the condition is mostly or entirely psychosomatic.

This suggests that if patients were convinced that prayer were effective - it also would be.

Since many studies have shown that prayer is not effective, even when the patient knows that people are praying for them and they are believers, it suggests that at heart they know God doesn't answer that kind of prayer.

Doubt will always be the bane of religion-based science.

[Questioner]

The placebo effect is real. If patients are convinced a treatment is effective - it will be.

Well, not all that much. The placebo effect seems to work best on chronic pain. And is is a pretty low level effect in most studies--about 5-10%. Nonetheless, it has an important (and often a much higher %) effect for patients whose symptoms are not associated with demonstrable physical problems. The problem is getting the patient to believe his/her condition has improved. And that is one place where chiropracters and "non-traditional therapists" have done a better job than MDs.

[Questioner]

WHY GOD NEVER RECEIVED A PHD

1. He had only one major publication.

2. It was in Hebrew.

3. It had no references.

4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal.

5. Some even doubt he wrote it by himself.

6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?

7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.

8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.

9. He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human subjects.

10. When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it by drowning his subjects.

11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.

12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.

13. Some say he had his son teach the class.

14. He expelled his first two students for learning.

15. Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students failed his tests.

16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.

17. No record of working well with colleagues.