Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Wrong, there are many fine arguments that buttress the logical probability of theism. One of them is this:
1) All or nearly all physical events have a cause that is separate and distinct from the physical event. (the effect)
2) The universe represents all physical things, and it's origin was a physical event.
3) Therefore, the universe most likely had a cause that was *separate and distinct* from the universe.
If the universe is "all physical things", the only thing that could be separate and distinct from the universe is a supernatural thing. A physical thing could not have been the cause of the universe because no physical thing would have existed yet to be the cause of - itself. (since the "universe" is all physical things)
The only thing that could be considered a "separate and distinct" cause of the universe (i.e., "all physical things") - would be a supernatural cause.
Theists have absolutely a talent for misrepresenting reality, and for using pseudo-logic.
Let us investigate the argument.
So the argument is:
1. All things have a cause
2. The universe represents all things
3. The universe must therefore have a cause
Let us investigate this logic in another example.
1. All members of a football team have parents
2. The football team represents all members of the team
3. Therefore the football team must have a parent
As we can see, argument 3 does not follow from argument 1 and 2. The logic is therefore flawed.
And another
1. In a closed thermodynamic system the amount of entropy continually increases
2. The universe represents all closed thermodynamic systems
3. Therefore in the universe the amounf of entropy must continually increase
This argument states that the universe therefore would have encountered already a heat death, unless it began at some time.
But the universe can be no less a closed thermodynamic system in regard of the second law, then it would be in regard of the first law, which means that the amount of energy and matter are constant through all time. In fact that could only lead to the conclusion that the heat death already occured. All useuable amounts of energy would have already been used.
This is however not the case. I look outside and.... the sun still shines! The error in the argument is of course that the universe is not a closed system.
Let us use another example.
1. A finite line has a begin and an end
2. An infinite line consists of finite lines
3. Therefore an infinite line has a begin and an end.
As we can see, this line of argument is simply false, since an infinite line does not have a begin or an end.
The argument for "first casue" is particulary flawed, since it misrepresents causality. Causality states that all events are as well a cause and an effect in different causal relationships. For example: cause1: it rains, effect1: I get wet. cause2. I get wet, effect2: I get sick.
The "first cause" is therefore also a "first effect" which by definition can only exist if there is also a cause for that, ad infinitium.
Moreover, outside of causality causes and effects do not exist. A "cause" for causality is therefore nonsensical.
).
