12 ms·

Because we are arguing from the our experience in this universe. In a sense, a self originating physical universe would have to have infinite intelligence for

by prmph 3y ago

Because we are arguing from the our experience in this universe. In a sense, a self originating physical universe would have to have infinite intelligence for it to be plausible, which we don't see. What we see is intelligence in human, who period and scope of existence is but a very tiny part of the universe. I guess this is why people think there must be something bigger than the physical universe out there, and I think it makes sense.

skhunted 3y ago
I think you miss my point. There are those that find the notion that a being can have always existed without being created as plausible but not the notion that another type of "thing" could have always existed without further elaboration on why that "thing" could not have always existed. That you have a more nuanced view on the matter just means you are not in the group of people that I'm referring to. At any rate, you believe something can exist without being created and in this we are agreement. I too believe that something can exist without being created.
- skissane 3y ago
  > That you have a more nuanced view on the matter just means you are not in the group of people that I'm referring to. I don't think "the group of people" you are referring to actually have any significance. You are attacking a strawman version of the cosmological argument, which no philosophically sophisticated theist would defend – and if it so happens that a handful of philosophically unsophisticated theists actually believe your strawman (because they can't see the obvious holes in it), so what? There are philosophically unsophisticated atheists too, who argue for atheism on grounds that intellectually serious atheists find embarrassing. When evaluating any point of view, we ought to focus our attention on its most thoughtful defenders, not the thoughtless ones.
  - skhunted 3y ago
    Everyone has an unsophisticated view about something. And most people lack sophistication in most topics. I’m not evaluating beliefs as such but rather pointing out the logical contortions that some theists engage in to rationalize their position. Of course there are unsophisticated atheists. When they engage in logical contortions that I notice I point it out. I hope people will point out flaws in arguments that I make.
    - skissane 3y ago
      > I’m not evaluating beliefs as such but rather pointing out the logical contortions that some theists engage in to rationalize their position I don't think they actually are engaging in "logical contortions" or rationalisations. Theists can be divided into three groups: (1) Those who don't accept any cosmological arguments: either they believe in God purely on the basis of faith, or else they believe on the basis of some non-cosmological argument (2) Those who accept some philosophically sophisticated cosmological argument – e.g. the kalam argument, or Thomas Aquinas' argument from contingency. They have a ready-made answer for "why if the universe requires an external cause doesn't God too?". I don't find those answers convincing myself, but I think it is unfair and intellectually uncharitable to just dismiss them as "logical contortions" or "rationalisations" (3) The unsophisticates who engage in cosmological argumentation, but have never seriously thought about the question "why if the universe requires a creator doesn't God too?". Do they actually have "logical contortions" or "rationalisations", or are they just not thinking?

by prmph 3y ago

skhunted 3y ago

I think you miss my point. There are those that find the notion that a being can have always existed without being created as plausible but not the notion that another type of "thing" could have always existed without further elaboration on why that "thing" could not have always existed. That you have a more nuanced view on the matter just means you are not in the group of people that I'm referring to. At any rate, you believe something can exist without being created and in this we are agreement. I too believe that something can exist without being created.

skissane 3y ago
> That you have a more nuanced view on the matter just means you are not in the group of people that I'm referring to. I don't think "the group of people" you are referring to actually have any significance. You are attacking a strawman version of the cosmological argument, which no philosophically sophisticated theist would defend – and if it so happens that a handful of philosophically unsophisticated theists actually believe your strawman (because they can't see the obvious holes in it), so what? There are philosophically unsophisticated atheists too, who argue for atheism on grounds that intellectually serious atheists find embarrassing. When evaluating any point of view, we ought to focus our attention on its most thoughtful defenders, not the thoughtless ones.
- skhunted 3y ago
  Everyone has an unsophisticated view about something. And most people lack sophistication in most topics. I’m not evaluating beliefs as such but rather pointing out the logical contortions that some theists engage in to rationalize their position. Of course there are unsophisticated atheists. When they engage in logical contortions that I notice I point it out. I hope people will point out flaws in arguments that I make.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > I’m not evaluating beliefs as such but rather pointing out the logical contortions that some theists engage in to rationalize their position I don't think they actually are engaging in "logical contortions" or rationalisations. Theists can be divided into three groups: (1) Those who don't accept any cosmological arguments: either they believe in God purely on the basis of faith, or else they believe on the basis of some non-cosmological argument (2) Those who accept some philosophically sophisticated cosmological argument – e.g. the kalam argument, or Thomas Aquinas' argument from contingency. They have a ready-made answer for "why if the universe requires an external cause doesn't God too?". I don't find those answers convincing myself, but I think it is unfair and intellectually uncharitable to just dismiss them as "logical contortions" or "rationalisations" (3) The unsophisticates who engage in cosmological argumentation, but have never seriously thought about the question "why if the universe requires a creator doesn't God too?". Do they actually have "logical contortions" or "rationalisations", or are they just not thinking?