Comment: No, you wouldn't have to rule

(See in situ)


No, you wouldn't have to rule

No, you wouldn't have to rule it out. We are trying to understand the truth, not to prove or disprove our pet hobby horses or prior ideological commitments.

The need that every thing have a prior cause is not an attribute of theism. Theism only claims that contingent, non necessary things require an explanation of their existence in some necessarily existent thing. Or, that things that begin to exist have a sufficient cause.

You seem to be equivocating the claim that created things need a creator, with all things need a creator. But uncreated things don't need a creator.

If everything does actually need a sufficient cause, and nothing is necessarily existent, than you have an infinite regress of past causes and events. But an actual infinite isn't logically possible, only a potential infinite. http://lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/

I agree with you that not everything needs a creator. But is the universe and past time actually infinite? The evidence suggests not. Could there be something beyond the universe, that is timeless, necessarily existent, but not conscious or personal?

It's conceivable. But if we stick with rational thought, and don't appeal to irrationality, we have to ask: What kind of thing is outside space (nonphysical), outside time (timeless), and then creates things that are physical and temporal? The theistic argument is that the only known thing that is spaceless, timeless and necessarily existent is an abstract reality like numbers, but abstract things don't cause things.

Another thing that is conceivably spaceless and timeless is the idea of Mind as something non physical. It's controversial, but the counter claim that mind and consciousness can be explained materially has not been proven or demonstrated.

So a mind is arguably the best fit for the timeless, spaceless, necessarily existent thing that is able to cause all other things.

Or, we just can't apply rational thought along these far out conceptual edges. But if we commit to the idea that rational thought is not fundamentally always reliable, we undercut all arguments and all sentences. And after all on materialism and nauralism, thoughts and sentences are essentially meaningless, deterministic things.

See William Lane Craig debate the author of the Atheists Guide to Reality Alex Rosenberg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84 Warning: It's brutal...