Timeline for Using Special Pleading to invalidate first-cause argument regarding existence of God
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 14, 2018 at 10:46 | comment | added | Evpok | “(sorry to anyone offended by the male pronoun - I am not gonna type him/her/it/blah/blah/blah)” that would have been shorter than this fake apologetic aside, which in fact ended up to be half your answer. | |
| Apr 14, 2018 at 1:51 | comment | added | Wildcard | @BraedenOrchard, of course not thrown out. But modified in the universalness of their applicability, certainly. Personally, I view the influence of mental factors (i.e. mental powers, which you can hardly call well understood in academic circles where there is not even a usable definition of "mind") as the most likely source of modifications. | |
| Apr 14, 2018 at 1:45 | comment | added | Braeden Orchard | @Wildcard, I know that our current understanding is flawed and that laws like the conservation of energy will change and develop over time. What I doubt is that they will be shown to be so incredibly wrong that they will have to be thrown out completely. | |
| Apr 14, 2018 at 1:29 | comment | added | Wildcard | @BraedenOrchard, "there cannot be a first cause for the energy that created the universe...." There have been people in every age who were certain they understood the universe correctly in every way. The history of science shows that they have all been mistaken. Do you really believe that you have achieved the pinnacle of understanding, and that the "laws of conservation of energy" are immutable and shall never be overturned nor shown to have been a flawed model all along? | |
| Apr 14, 2018 at 1:25 | comment | added | Braeden Orchard | There cannot be a first cause for the energy that created the universe from a materialistic point of view either. The difference between atheists and theists is that atheists don't believe that this original energy (which has always existed, just like you believe your god has) was a self aware and human like entity. | |
| Apr 13, 2018 at 19:29 | comment | added | Frank Hubeny | +1 I don't see the logic around the first cause itself as erroneous, but the logic is not able to encompass all that reality would be, nor is logic a substitute belief. I do think you make a good point about the limits of logic. A believer of whatever faith is closer to the reality than any philosopher who does not believe, but presents arguments. | |
| Apr 13, 2018 at 19:23 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 13, 2018 at 20:03 | |||||
| Apr 13, 2018 at 19:19 | history | answered | JohnnyS | CC BY-SA 3.0 |