Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2011 11:47:30 GMT
The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence, and this law must also extend to "God" I see no good reason to believe the Buddhist theory of causation and have good reason to disbelieve it. If something exist by necessity, it doesn't have preconditions for its existence outside itself.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 25, 2011 12:47:17 GMT
Thanks for replying seriously, Dave! Now we can begin to talk "The first cause argument was not only predicted by Buddha but refuted by him as well and this was 2,500 years ago!". In recent centuries, there have been many arguments formulated for and against God's existence. The insightful Siddhartha had anticipated these arguments so he made sure to refute these future errors in his Dharma. The following argument is a combination of the Argument from Evil combined with a refutation of the Kalam's Cosmological Argument of the first cause. I don't quite understand this as a Kalam CA is a different argument than a First Cause CA. They have distinct and different histories and formulations. Refuting a Kalam does not refute a First Cause argument. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown. This is not a valid argument, as it has a lot of unstated premises. Why must both pure and impure deeds come from God? Why can't there be other causes than God? Why would the existence of any contingent cause refute the existence of a self-existing one? This seems in short more based on a pantheistic world view than a theistic. And it is not valid philosophically. "Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them. Pantheism again. In the West a number of "arguments" have been adduced to prove or disprove the existence of God. Some of these were anticipated by the Buddha. One of the most popular is the "first cause" argument according to which everything must have a cause, and God is considered the first cause of the Universe. Nonsense. This is not the First Cause argument. You will find about zero theistic philosophers who have as a premise that "everything must have a cause". Even if Harris, Dennett and Grayling may say otherwise. Putting the FC argument this way has always been a sure indication that someone doesn't know what they are talking about. The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence, and this law must also extend to "God" should such an entity exist. But while the "first cause" claims that God creates everything, it exempts God from the ambit of this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God such exemptions could be made with respect to other things also hereby contradicting the principle of the first cause." Which is why no serious philosopher (Aristotle, Aquinas, Dun Scotus, Leibniz, Plantinga, Taliaferro, Craig etc. etc.) ever has made that a principle. A cosmological argument is made precisely because such a theory of causation (as the Buddhist one you mention) leads into infinite regress. It is an argument for the necessity of the existence of a being that is immune to this regress. Instead of refuting a First Cause argument, what you have refuted seems to be a claim of ever having understood it
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 25, 2011 18:46:35 GMT
The first part was about the argument from evil which we were not discussing I only quoted it because it was interlinked with the Buddha's views on causality to put it into context. I didn't want to quote mine the Buddha. It should be obvious that the Buddha was talking about the beginning of everything. He was talking about 2,500 years ago and probably thought that the world was the centre of a very small universe and lights in the sky were just that. The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence, and this law must also extend to "God" should such an entity exist. But while the "first cause" claims that God creates everything, it exempts God from the ambit of this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God such exemptions could be made with respect to other things also hereby contradicting the principle of the first cause." Again the Buddha was talking about the beginning of everything which with current knowledge we know to be the universe (theistic speculations aside.) The Buddha seems to agree with premiss one (p1) everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. He even seems to agree with premiss two (p2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. (very generous of him on both counts.) It's premiss three (p3) Thus the universe has a cause of its existence. Well this is the part the the Buddha takes issue with when the (first) cause is said to be god. “The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence” (I see nothing wrong with this.) He also points out the 'special pleading fallacy' thus: 'But while the "first cause" claims that God creates everything (beginning of the universe existenced,) it exempts God from the ambit of this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God such exemptions could be made with respect to other things.' Not bad for a 2,500 year old dead guy. As for your claims about 'first cause' and 'beginning to exist' just come across as semantic games to avoid the issue, well colour me surprised. Well he did live 2,500 years ago, if he had present day knowledge of physics and cosmology he would have shown that to be rubbish too.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 25, 2011 19:43:37 GMT
The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence, and this law must also extend to "God" I see no good reason to believe the Buddhist theory of causation and have good reason to disbelieve it. If something exist by necessity, it doesn't have preconditions for its existence outside itself. I have a bridge for sale, do you want to buy it?
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jan 25, 2011 19:56:22 GMT
So I take it you don't see any problem at all with an infinite regress?
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 25, 2011 21:01:13 GMT
So I take it you don't see any problem at all with an infinite regress? Have a problem with It are you kidding! I love it, I even have a T shirt with turtles all the way down printed on it just to annoy my physics friends. ;D That will teach them to belittle biology, while claiming physics and cosmology are so great. They don't even have a unified theory of physics, peasants. To be honest though they are brilliant and clever and I have full confidence that they will solve the problem eventually just so long as it's not in my lifetime I would never hear the last of it.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jan 26, 2011 6:23:41 GMT
I cannot see why infinite regress is a more unsatisfactory explaination than first cause,I tend to agree with Russell that the Universe is just a 'brute fact'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 7:00:01 GMT
I cannot see why infinite regress is a more unsatisfactory explaination than first cause, While each cause is explained by the preceding one, you don't explain the set of this causes. You also have to make actual infinities a coherent concept - something that is riddled with paradoxes and incoherence. Having in mind the universe's high contingency, how can this not be special pleading?!
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jan 26, 2011 7:21:58 GMT
Firstly I never said I thought infinite regress a coherent concept,just no more incoherent than first cause.Secondly referring to the Universe as a brute fact is more an admission of ignorance of it's causes than special pleading.A good example of special pleading might be the built in exemption of God,as a necessary being not requiring a cause,when everything else does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 7:33:03 GMT
Firstly I never said I thought infinite regress a coherent concept,just no more incoherent than first cause. Potential infinities are observed constantly in everyday life. A first cause is quite coherent. If you admit ignorance, you can't know if the universe is a brute fact or not. You want to have one's cake and eat it, too. Sorry. You first argue that there is a necessary being, and then you give arguments why that necessary being exemplifies properties God has. There's no special pleading going on here.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 26, 2011 7:55:16 GMT
It should be obvious that the Buddha was talking about the beginning of everything. He was talking about 2,500 years ago and probably thought that the world was the centre of a very small universe and lights in the sky were just that. Ahem. What should be obvious is that you presented me with a text that was seriously confused about cosmological arguments. It brought no insight into the discussion at all. Why you insisted Buddha had refuted the argument is quite beyond me. Noone who knows anything about such arguments would have said that. When you even bring in the size of the universe, this exchange is really turning into a parody. The size of the cosmos has nothing to do with any cosmological argument. So far you have just confirmed the suspicion that you are just as misinformed about the First Cause CA as Harris and Dennett. Again the Buddha was talking about the beginning of everything which with current knowledge we know to be the universe (theistic speculations aside.) The Buddha seems to agree with premiss one (p1) everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. Now, this is getting even more confused. You are suddenly dropping a First Cause argument and bringing in Kalam, an argument which did not exist until a thousand years after Buddha. Buddha was not talking about Kalam as the argument had not yet begin to exist. What he may have been hinting at is an Aristotelian argument (though seriously misunderstood). However, even those didn't exist until several hundred years after Buddha... In other words, this quote is a refutation of it being made by Buddha at all, not of any cosmological argument. And, BTW, what the text you quoted from actually said is that everything has a cause, which as mentioned is not part of any cosmological argument. It says precisely nothing about (P1) in a Kalam argument. “The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence” (I see nothing wrong with this.) The question is not what you "see". It is what you argue. It is as mentioned exactly this theory of causation which leads to the problem comological arguments are about. A problem you have to solve, or end in logical incoherence (your turtle T-shirt). He also points out the 'special pleading fallacy' thus: 'But while the "first cause" claims that God creates everything (beginning of the universe existenced,) it exempts God from the ambit of this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God such exemptions could be made with respect to other things.' Again, you are seriously confused. A CA makes no special pleadings, it argues for a conclusion. If you want to argue against that conclusion, the minimum requirement is to ... argue. As you so far haven't shown much understanding of the argument, it is rather safe to conclude that you've never really considered it.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jan 26, 2011 8:00:52 GMT
Infinite regress is not a potential infinity,as the name suggests.I would say that it is harder to imagine a more modest claim about any observable phenomena than it is just a brute fact,in other words it just 'is'.Please explain how you can argue for a necessary being without special pleading.Does more than one exist?
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Jan 26, 2011 15:06:43 GMT
The reason infinite regress is problematic is because a cause plays a very large role in something's explanation -- indeed, in the mid-20th century plenty of philosophers of science claimed that "explanation" and "cause" were synonymous. By saying something is caused you are therefore saying that it is explained by its cause. The effect borrows its meaning from its cause. As long as the cause has meaning, then the effect has meaning. If the cause is itself caused, then it's borrowing its meaning from its cause, etc. If the causal chain is infinite then there is a line of effects borrowing their meaning from the effect prior in the chain. But this entails that none of the members of this infinite set have meaning in and of itself, and as such, none of them have any meaning to bestow. Therefore, in order for causes to play a role in explanation, the causal chain must be finite.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 27, 2011 4:28:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 29, 2011 0:20:52 GMT
bjorn.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
Buddha agrees.
2.The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Buddha agrees.
3.Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
Buddha agrees. 4.This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality.
Buddha says What!!!! Where is the evidence for an uncaused cause first or otherwise, where is the evidence for a transcend physical reality. Where is the evidence that an uncaused cause can let alone must transcend physical reality. Three unsupportable suppositions. Totally and utterly rejected until some supporting evidence is given.
5.This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God.
Buddha says does not follow as premiss 4 has been shown to be fallacious. 6.Therefore God exists.
Buddha says no he doesn't and if that's the best Craig can come up with then he's an idiot. Well that was easy, thanks again Buddha.
|
|