The argument from the principle of causality usually goes as follows:
1) Everything that exists (comes to existence) in nature has/needs a cause.
2) The universe exists but has no traceable cause.
Therefore, a supernatural being caused the universe.
Nothing new, whats wrong with it?
Whats wrong with it is (1) Everything that exists (comes to existence) has/needs a cause. Where the hell did we get that principle from? why does everything need a cause?
The usual response: From experience, we learn through induction that everything needs/has a cause except for the universe.
I say: Hell No! that is not what we experience. That is not what we learn from Induction.
What we do learn from experience (induction) is that we observe things ALREADY EXISTING in a certain form, changing to another form. We never witness something beginning to exist from nothing. We never witness anything that resembles the godly creation.
What we witness is matter/energy already existing in nature in a certain state, changing to another state. We never witness something coming from Non-existence to existence.
Its the same as the law of conservation of energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can be changed from one form to another. We see this with matter too.
Nature satisfies and fulfills the chain of causality in this sense. There is no invisible causes that needs us searching for something outside of the universe. Causes and effects are traceable IN nature.
This makes (1) a wrong premise.
If you alter it to: Every change in the manner of existence of an already existing object needs a cause. The whole argument for God falls apart; the circularity of causality is perfect without him, satisfied in nature.
That is not to mention, that we are not justified if we claim that causality (either versions) applies on the universe as a whole VS the operations of its parts.
1) Everything that exists (comes to existence) in nature has/needs a cause.
2) The universe exists but has no traceable cause.
Therefore, a supernatural being caused the universe.
Nothing new, whats wrong with it?
Whats wrong with it is (1) Everything that exists (comes to existence) has/needs a cause. Where the hell did we get that principle from? why does everything need a cause?
The usual response: From experience, we learn through induction that everything needs/has a cause except for the universe.
I say: Hell No! that is not what we experience. That is not what we learn from Induction.
What we do learn from experience (induction) is that we observe things ALREADY EXISTING in a certain form, changing to another form. We never witness something beginning to exist from nothing. We never witness anything that resembles the godly creation.
What we witness is matter/energy already existing in nature in a certain state, changing to another state. We never witness something coming from Non-existence to existence.
Its the same as the law of conservation of energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can be changed from one form to another. We see this with matter too.
Nature satisfies and fulfills the chain of causality in this sense. There is no invisible causes that needs us searching for something outside of the universe. Causes and effects are traceable IN nature.
This makes (1) a wrong premise.
If you alter it to: Every change in the manner of existence of an already existing object needs a cause. The whole argument for God falls apart; the circularity of causality is perfect without him, satisfied in nature.
That is not to mention, that we are not justified if we claim that causality (either versions) applies on the universe as a whole VS the operations of its parts.
Buy on AliExpress.com
