The existence of "free will" negates the argument that God must have created 
the universe as a "first cause".

The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence for 
the universe to exist, something before the universe must have caused it, 
and hence God exists.[1]

On the other hand, either our decisions are caused by what's in the 
environment, or some aspect of our decisions are not subject to prior 
causes. In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not 
believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of 
external circumstances. In the latter case, many decisions have effects 
without precedent cause, and hence the requirement for God to have created 
the universe disappears.

Thoughts?



[1] ("God created the universe" -> "Jesus died for your sins" is left as an 
exercise for the reader.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of
> external circumstances.

Well, if you try to make someone believe in your religion, you are *being*
an "external circumstance" to him.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Thoughts?

No, it's Christmas and I'm not in the mood for such flamewars. ;)

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> On the other hand, either our decisions are caused by what's in the
> environment, or some aspect of our decisions are not subject to prior
> causes. In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of
> external circumstances. In the latter case, many decisions have effects
> without precedent cause, and hence the requirement for God to have
> created
> the universe disappears.
>
> Thoughts?

Why should God's having created the universe be a requirement?  From 
everything I've studied and learned, it seems that God doesn't like proof 
of his own existence.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence for 
> the universe to exist, something before the universe must have caused it, 
> and hence God exists.[1]

  Science doesn't seem to have any answers about this either.

  There is a rather large amount of scientific postulations describing the
Big Bang, going further and further back in time, to tiny fractions of
a second after the bang started. However, nobody seems to be able to
explain how and why it started (and where did all that energy come from).

  Not that this proves the existence of a creator being which transcends
the Universe, but that theory is as good as any.

  In the beginning there was nothing. Then...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   In the beginning there was nothing. Then...

	In the beginning, there was Multivac.

-- 
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Why should God's having created the universe be a requirement?

It's just a very common argument.

> everything I've studied and learned, it seems that God doesn't like proof 
> of his own existence.

Only since the invention of cameras. Surely you must have missed the part 
about the parting of the red sea, the sun stopping in the sky for three 
days, ten plagues, the resurrection of dead people, water to wine, and all 
that stuff? :-)

But I didn't really express this with the intent of getting into a general 
debate. Just to see whether there was something I was missing in my logic.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   In the beginning there was nothing. Then...
> 
> In the beginning, there was Multivac.

"In the beginning, God created the bit."

Given the recent developments in physics, I'd say in the beginning he
created the quark :)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence for 
>> the universe to exist, something before the universe must have caused it, 
>> and hence God exists.[1]
> 
>   Science doesn't seem to have any answers about this either.

Many hypotheses that can be investigated, however.

>   There is a rather large amount of scientific postulations describing the
> Big Bang, going further and further back in time, to tiny fractions of
> a second after the bang started. 

Yep. Mostly calculations based on more "normal" circumstances. And I don't 
think anyone knows why the "inflation" bit occurred (or where "dark matter" 
came from, or what "dark energy" is, etc). Astrophysics always seems to add 
one new unknown variable for each observation. Each time a major discovery 
is made, someone makes something mostly-unobservable up to account for it.

> However, nobody seems to be able to
> explain how and why it started (and where did all that energy come from).

There are a number of theories, like "brane theory" which postulates 
higher-level structures colliding and such, or "big bounce" theories which 
postulate a cyclic (but long-term stable) state. I certainly don't know any 
details.

I'm pretty sure anyone who argues the "first cause" argument would not 
accept "a black hole in another universe evaporating" or "normal plain old 
aliens somewhere else" as the "first cause" for the big bang, either.

>   Not that this proves the existence of a creator being which transcends
> the Universe, but that theory is as good as any.

I would disagree, putting "a creator which transcends the universe" as 
usually expressed being an untestable hypothesis. That, in my book, makes it 
a hypothesis that isn't as good. (I think 11-dimensional string theory falls 
into the same "untestable" hypothesis area (for different reasons), as well, 
and from what I understand many physicists are starting to look at it that 
way as well.)

Of course, if you express it as "we're all simulations in someone's 
computer", you could reasonably come up with evidence-based tests to support 
or refute this claim.

It also fails (for me) in the concept that the hypothesis of a creator-god 
(as usually envisioned by organized religion at least)

If you want to postulate an unknowable creator who doesn't care what we do 
and can't influence us after death, then I'd have to wonder why one would 
attribute a personality to such a thing. Not only do you have a supernatural 
(in the strict definition of the word) cause for the universe, but one who 
decides and makes choices and so on, as well.

In any case, my comment was more along the lines of "free will implies there 
needn't be a first cause", not "there was no first cause."  The usual 
argument for why there is evil in the world undermines a common argument for 
why a god was needed to create the universe.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   Not that this proves the existence of a creator being which transcends
> > the Universe, but that theory is as good as any.

> I would disagree, putting "a creator which transcends the universe" as 
> usually expressed being an untestable hypothesis.

  How can *any* hypothesis which states how the Universe came into existence
be testable? It's more or less by definition impossible to replicate the
circumstances of the Big Bang (eg. for the simple reason that time-space
is not currently in the same state as it was at the moment the Big Bang
happened).

  For this reason one hypothesis is as good as any other.

> In any case, my comment was more along the lines of "free will implies there 
> needn't be a first cause", not "there was no first cause." 

  What is "free will"? Do we have free will (regardless of what is your
world view)? Or is free will just an illusion?

  From a purely materialistic point of view there could be two ways of
thinking about how people make decisions:

  1) Everything is deterministic. Every action has a well-defined, unique
and deterministic reaction. Thus everything is just a consequence of what
came before that. Thus everything follows an exact path which cannot go
in any other way. The amount of interactions in the Universe is so
staggeringly large that we cannot even imagine it, which is why it may
seem that things happen randomly and that people make random choices, but
in the end it all comes down to the basic principle of cause and consequence,
of action and reaction. Every choice you make is just a consequence of your
past.

  2) Everything is chaotic. Uncertain quantum states make it so that it's
absolutely impossible to predict what effects certain actions will have.
It may well go one way or another (or even both ways at the same time!).
By the rules of the Universe it's physically impossible to predict what
will happen in the future from current events, because people will make
completely random and unpredictable choices which, deep down, are a
consequence of the complete uncertainty of quantum interactions.

  However, in neither case can you speak of true "freedom of choice".
In the first case every decision is pre-determined by your past. Every
electric impulse in your brain is determined by previous impulses and
physical events. You are not making a decision, you are simply reacting
to previous actions.

  In the second case you are not choosing. You are acting completely at
random (even if this randomness can be seen only in the tiniest of details).
You are not making decisions based on choice, but based on how some
quantum states happen to be at some point in time (at any point in the
timeline).

  Even if we make a mix of the two extremes, can it be called "free will"
even then? Your choices are only either a consequence of your past, or
caused by quantum uncertainty.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message