Your Purpose in Life

Originally posted by FMF
I haven't been talking about whether what one believes is true or not.

me either

Originally posted by FMF
I'm not so sure. I think 'going through the motions' (which is something countless people decide to do in countless situations and do so without the core beliefs that ought to underpin and propel those acts) is a major feature of the human condition.

"ought to"? It's up to you? As I said, I doubt anyone ever acts without basing that act on a belief. I'll stand by that. People don't go through motions unless they think they should.

The Meaning of Life

Part 1 of 3

YouTube

Part 2 of 3

YouTube

Part 3 of 3

YouTube

Originally posted by apathist
"ought to"? It's up to you? As I said, I doubt anyone ever acts without basing that act on a belief. I'll stand by that. People don't go through motions unless they think they should.

Perhaps you are using some different definition or sense of what the expression "going through the motions" means when used in the context in which I used it. A nominal Christian, perhaps in a tightly knit community or with a somewhat overbearing family, might go to church dutifully, kneel down and seem to pray, sing along with hymns, even talk the theological talk from time to time with pious friends or relatives, and do all this without any religious "belief" whatsoever. Such a person would be "going through the motions". Indeed, such people may perhaps be padding out (and maybe have always been padding out) the "Christian" demographic.

What I'm getting at overall is that if you base your ontological argument on the necessity of prior cause then you have the problem that the difficulty with the necessity of prior cause seems to apply to God as well. You can insist that God does not require prior cause, but if that is the case then it is hard to see why it should apply to the universe.

As i explore this it appears a misunderstanding of the ontological argument is to express it as "Everything has a cause" but "every effect has a cause."

So "What is the prior cause of God" sounds to me like a plea to change the definition of God to mean God is an effect.

So if every effect has a cause, and we define God as an effect then God must have had a cause also. The trick is in jury-rigging the definition of God.

So I ask myself the question "Is it fair to have in the definition of God that God is the uncaused cause or the first cause of the effect of the universe ?" Someone would have to tell me why it is unfair to hold that characteristic in the definition of God.

Its not unfair to say "All bachelors are unmarried men" (not counting a person with a "bachelor's degree" ). It is analytically true I'm told, because when the words of the statement are analyzed, by definition, the statement is true.

"Some bachelors are married men" is necessarily false. In the words used in the statement, the definition itself, require that we understand "unmarried men" by the word "bachelors."

That God is uncaused is part of the definition of God to the theist, and I would assume the atheist. The former believes such a One exists. The latter does not.

I gather that the latter, the Atheist, may attempt a sneaky trick. That is to jury-rigged the definition of God so as to remove that attribute of eternality. Then with a fresh face ask - "Well then what caused God?"

Its necessarily a nonsensical statement. I didn't say it proves Theism or it proves Atheism. I just say it is a nonsensical statement like "Some bachelors are married men."

The words themselves contain definition to ascertain is what is being asked is reasonable or not.

But what about the question of "Why cannot then the universe be eternal and uncreated?" Its a good question.

I sit at my desk and glance around at the hundreds of objects on it. They are all effects. The books, the computer, the magnifying glass, the earphones, the speakers, the storage device, the cell phone, the basket, the CD spindle, the CDs on the spindles, the pens, the cup.

I cannot see one thing around me that is not the effect brought about by some cause. Beyond my room here is the world, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond. I still cannot thing of one thing in the whole universe that is not the effect of some other cause.

I think everything in the universe is an effect.
I think to not think so is not at all friendly to the scientific enterprise.
I think to say anything in the universe is an uncaused thing is not friendly to the doing of science, which is a search for causes of effects.

I think the entire universe of all things energy, motion, in time, in space, of mass, or exotic material as an aggregate whole or in a "world assemble" or "multiverse" is probably an effect as well.

If I take anything in the universe and subdivide it down into smaller and smaller components, it seems every level is also an effect. If I enlarge the sphere of all things, it seems at every larger level all things also are effects.

At the largest possible stage, I think it is still an effect.
Going in the other direction, at every small stage all things are effects.
An infinite regress of causation I don't think is the answer to this mystery.

An uncaused cause which is eternal and not in the universe, i think is the answer.
I'm biased though to the Bible. But Aristotle wasn't. And he argued pretty much the same. There had to be an uncaused First Cause.

Some say "All truth is God's." Though I am biased to the Holy Bible, Aristotle wasn't and may just have been onto what is true.