Non-realist Christianity

[wigginhall]

That's a nice word, never heard it.  I bet Lawrence Durrell uses it, and he writes a lot about mad gnostics. 

I think the Jesus mythers use stuff like that from Paul, to argue that for him, Christ is a spiritual being tormented by the archons and demons, who dwell in the realms several rungs up from the material.   

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#142

Most of them don't stand up, but I did surprise myself some time ago when I thought that God the realist one) might be the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", and realised that that was, more or less, the first-cause argument. However, if it provesw anything, it only proves a Deist God who made everything in the first place, which is a long way short of the Judaeo-Christian God.

It doesn’t prove anything. If it wasn’t flawed it would, as you suggest, lead only to deism (ie, a god who wound up the clock and then left the scene). The flaws undo it though – the only way out of an infinite regress is arbitrarily to use special pleading for an “uncaused cause” (essentially, “it’s magic innit”), and it assumes that the cause and effect we see inside the universe would also be required for there to be a universe.

Not only incorrect, it also ignores the problems with the alternative, namely nothing causing something.

[SteveH]

How can nothing cause anything?

[Sebastian Toe]

#142
Not only incorrect, it also ignores the problems with the alternative, namely nothing causing something.

Is that the only alternative?

[Owlswing]

 (not every single human, before some smart-arse says "I dont!", but humans in general) [/quote}

I have only just read this OP - would you care to explain why someone contradicting your statement has to be defined as a "smartarse"?

"Smartarse" is a pretty good description of your quoted comment!

Before posting this comment I read over some other posts you have made and it seems to me that you have a really inflated opinion of yourself - what's the word - oh yes - arrogance!

Example - trying to slap down a University professor on matters pertaining to his particular speciality. Whohoo, ballsy SteveH ballsy!

[wigginhall]

#142
Not only incorrect, it also ignores the problems with the alternative, namely nothing causing something.

But does God create something from nothing?  How does he do that? 

[Bramble]

How does he do that?

In mysterious ways?

[Gordon]

#142
Not only incorrect, it also ignores the problems with the alternative, namely nothing causing something.

As others have said: how does it do this?

There are two related issues though: the first being what exactly is 'nothing' and does this state of 'nothing' really exist; the other being that if, as Sword suggests, something from nothing is a problem then it is also a problem for supporters of god, since 'where does god come from if not from nothing?' really does require an answer, then there is the obvious regress issue.

If it was (or is) assumed that god is the exception then it seems we have a class of things that are uncaused: if god is a member of this class then why not, say, the rest of the universe? If it is said that god is the sole occupant of this class then we need to see the workings-out leading to that assumption, and first-cause proponents seem to get stuck here.

I'll stick to a thoughtful 'dunno'!   

[BeRational]

How can nothing cause anything?

I don't know.

Equally, I don't know that it can't either, so I am stuck not knowing.

Same as you.

[floo]

In mysterious ways?

Very mysterious indeed.

I wonder what or who created god?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Is that the only alternative?

It is if you agree with bluehillside's proposition in his #151

The flaws undo it though – the only way out of an infinite regress is arbitrarily to use special pleading for an “uncaused cause” (essentially, “it’s magic innit”), and it assumes that the cause and effect we see inside the universe would also be required for there to be a universe.

a caused cause - infinite regression
an uncaused cause - not allowed as a means of terminating the regression, according to bluehillside
therefore the only other option is a cause from nothing to terminate the regression

unless ...

the whole proposition of an infinite regression is flawed in the first place!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

If it was (or is) assumed that god is the exception then it seems we have a class of things that are uncaused: if god is a member of this class then why not, say, the rest of the universe?

Did the universe have a beginning?

[Gordon]

Did the universe have a beginning?

No idea.

Did god have a beginning?

[Enki]

How can nothing cause anything?

I'll use the same rhetorical question as Bramble did when asked about how God creates something out of nothing in post 156:

In mysterious ways?

 

[SusanDoris]

I wait with bated breath for Sword of the Spirit to come up with an answer for us all.

[wigginhall]

Come on, guys, God's mysterious ways are very very special, as they are written down, and then interpreted by a godly crew of hipsters, who are full of luurve towards all men and women.   Have I missed anything out?  Oh yes, the nothing that God creates out of is a special nothing, also  full of luurve, and also space dust, so God is onto a winner there, cobble it all together, now I'm channeling Tommy Cooper.

[Dicky Underpants]

Come on, guys, God's mysterious ways are very very special, as they are written down, and then interpreted by a godly crew of hipsters, who are full of luurve towards all men and women.   Have I missed anything out?  Oh yes, the nothing that God creates out of is a special nothing, also  full of luurve, and also space dust, so God is onto a winner there, cobble it all together, now I'm channeling Tommy Cooper.

But "the Void is always full".

Must admit I'm getting a bit confused about SteveH's position. On this thread, he started by arguing for the non-realist God standpoint. Elsewhere (on the icontinence pants thread) he seems to be arguing that the "stuff of the universe is mind-stuff" (which is closer to the realist God outlook). And here he's giving a nod to Aquinas' First Cause.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Not only incorrect, it also ignores the problems with the alternative, namely nothing causing something.

Which part do you think to be incorrect and why, and it doesn't "ignore" it at all - rather it asks first why you think the universe had to have cause at all, and second why you think moving the problem back a step into a conjecture you call "god" and then applying some special pleading to it helps you. 

[BeRational]

Did the universe have a beginning?

Our local universe certainly seems to. But the Cosmos my be eternal.

It is not known.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is if you agree with bluehillside's proposition in his #151

Do you agree with that proposition?

[SteveH]

trying to slap down a University professor on matters pertaining to his particular speciality. Whohoo, ballsy SteveH ballsy!

I didn't do that - I argued with him about a philosophical point.

[Owlswing]

I didn't do that - I argued with him about a philosophical point.

Yes you did! You told him to do some learning!

As to the philosophiocal point I would suggest that his academic qualifications mean he knows an infinite amount more about philosophy than you ever will!

Which is why I leave arguing philosophy with him to a, to use your own term, smartarse like you. 

[Robbie]

Steady on, for all we know steveH is as well qualified. Not everyone wears it on their sleeves. In any case debate means challenging established ideas, even those held with authority. On this message board it's done all the time & isn't that what we like about it?

[Dicky Underpants]

Steady on, for all we know steveH is as well qualified. Not everyone wears it on their sleeves. In any case debate means challenging established ideas, even those held with authority. On this message board it's done all the time & isn't that what we like about it?

Actually, Steve included the professor in his general denigration of "logorrhoeic idiots", in a post addressed to the professor, and that didn't seem to have much to do with challenging established ideas. In fact, Steve had been arguing on the basis of ideas put forward by pundits long dead, and he didn't seem to like being pulled up over the suggestion that their ideas had been superseded.

Of the latter, the prof had said

No I disagree with them and in every case their views are understandably woefully ill informed as they cannot have taken account of the massive increase in knowledge over recent decades, for the simply reason that they have all been dead for over 50 years.

For what it's worth, I'd say that the prof, far from being a 'logorrhoeic idiot' writes prose of an admirable lucidity (for an academic, a breed given to regurgitating a cliquish jargon comprehensible only to themselves. I can think of one individual prone to spewing out such jargon like some malfunctioning Dalek, though - he is not an atheist )

[bluehillside Retd.]

Dicky,

Actually, Steve included the professor in his general denigration of "logorrhoeic idiots", in a post addressed to the professor, and that didn't seem to have much to do with challenging established ideas. In fact, Steve had been arguing on the basis of ideas put forward by pundits long dead, and he didn't seem to like being pulled up over the suggestion that their ideas had been superseded.

He's also given to dismissing as "bollocks" arguments he can't process. Be interesting for example to see how he'd argue for absolutism without omniscience.