I want to believe in evolution

[Aeson]

If you own a bike, and after much scientific research you conclude that it has been made in a factory, but then you're unable to track the origins of this factory and if it was made in a factory as well, does that then mean that your first conclusion (bike was made in a factory) is wrong?

Perhaps bikes need a factory, but factory have completely different reasons to exist.

If you own a bike that's 100% red, if you tear it into pieces, all pieces are 100% red. Then you can conclude in the end: the bike is red and all parts of it are red as well.
Does that then also lead to the conclusion that the bike factory has to be red as well?

So now we have a universe, and all pieces we know of the universe do need a cause in some way. It also needs 'space' in which it can exist. So we can safely assume that, with our current knowledge, it seems like our universe needs a cause and a space to exist in. (how small that space might have been at starters).
Does that mean that we must conclude that the cause of our universe also need space and cause? No, of course not.

So while the universe needs a cause and space, anything that caused the universe may exist under completely different laws, rules and circumstances that are totally alien to us.

We don't know that the universe was created, or how it was if it was. It's every bit as possible that the universe to have not needed a cause as for God to have not needed a cause. We simply don't know.

Saying that God needs a cause if the universe needs a cause is pure bollocks.

Both statements are displaying a very similar ignorance actually. We don't know the answer in either case, and as such it's possible that neither needed a cause.

But you seem to have missed the point of my post entirely. I was pointing out how your analogy wasn't a proper analog to the one you were addressing (eg. "If God created the universe, what created God"). I am not promoting that statement myself as it's obvious that we have no evidence pertaining to God to even begin to discern an answer from. Once you go with "God did it", it's an entirely different ballgame.

[Aeson]

If you own a bike, and after much scientific research you conclude that it has been made in a factory, but then you're unable to track the origins of this factory and if it was made in a factory as well, does that then mean that your first conclusion (bike was made in a factory) is wrong?

Perhaps bikes need a factory, but factory have completely different reasons to exist.

If you own a bike that's 100% red, if you tear it into pieces, all pieces are 100% red. Then you can conclude in the end: the bike is red and all parts of it are red as well.
Does that then also lead to the conclusion that the bike factory has to be red as well?

So now we have a universe, and all pieces we know of the universe do need a cause in some way. It also needs 'space' in which it can exist. So we can safely assume that, with our current knowledge, it seems like our universe needs a cause and a space to exist in. (how small that space might have been at starters).
Does that mean that we must conclude that the cause of our universe also need space and cause? No, of course not.

So while the universe needs a cause and space, anything that caused the universe may exist under completely different laws, rules and circumstances that are totally alien to us.

We don't know that the universe was created, or how it was if it was. It's every bit as possible that the universe to have not needed a cause as for God to have not needed a cause. We simply don't know.

Saying that God needs a cause if the universe needs a cause is pure bollocks.

Both statements are displaying a very similar ignorance actually. We don't know the answer in either case, and as such it's possible that neither needed a cause.

But you seem to have missed the point of my post entirely. I was pointing out how your analogy wasn't a proper analog to the one you were addressing (eg. "If God created the universe, what created God"). I am not promoting that statement myself as it's obvious that we have no evidence pertaining to God to even begin to discern an answer from. Once you go with "God did it", it's an entirely different ballgame.

[Jon Miller]

But it is an acceptable ball game in philosophy.

It isn't an acceptable ball game in that subset of philosophy known as science.

JM

[Aeson]

Yes, philosophy (or theology) would be the "different ballgame". I didn't say anything about "acceptable" or not.

[Jon Miller]

If you want to put it like that, once you include God it is a different ballgame (no longer science).

I was merely saying that the 'X is without cause/etc' reasoning is acceptable in most parts of philosophy (including theology) but is not acceptable in science. Science is in a way incomplete that way.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Both statements are displaying a very similar ignorance actually. We don't know the answer in either case, and as such it's possible that neither needed a cause.

The universe is nothing but everything that is a part of it ,everything which requires a cause to exist.

[Robert]

People who say "If the universe needs a cause, then so does God" left the scientific ball game and entered the philosophical ball game. And apparently while being unaware of the rules.

We don't know that the universe was created, or how it was if it was. It's every bit as possible that the universe to have not needed a cause as for God to have not needed a cause. We simply don't know.

We don't know for sure, but so far everything we have encountered need a cause and space.
It's therefore not a very weird philosophical statement to make that there are good odds that all elements in our universe need a cause and a size, and that therefore most probably our universe itself (which is in fact no more or less then the sum of all parts of the universe) need a cause and a size.

It has nothing to do with 'creation' of the universe. It can be very well that the universe has been caused by and from something else in a different system with different laws of nature, beyond our understanding.

Robert: Saying that God needs a cause if the universe needs a cause is pure bollocks.

Both statements are displaying a very similar ignorance actually. We don't know the answer in either case, and as such it's possible that neither needed a cause.

True, there's a possibility that neither need one. (eventhough there's nothing that leads us to believe that the universe needs no cause, just wishful thinking). But I'm not saying the above to say something about both individual statements.
I am stating that claiming that "if God needs no cause, the universe needs no cause either" is a stupid statement, philosophically.
(In fact as much silly it is to state that "If the Universe needs no cause then God needs no cause either")

Do you agree with that?

I was pointing out how your analogy wasn't a proper analog...

The purpose of an analogy is far from it being correct, from proving something.
It's just to make something clear. It helps you to understand my way of thinking. Discussing if an analogy was proper or not is a silly waste of time. The question is if it helped you to understand what I was trying to state.

Once you go with "God did it", it's an entirely different ballgame.

If "God" is "The God of the Bible" then it's indeed a different ball game.
Stating that I rationally conclude that there are very good odds that the origins of our universe/system are outside our understanding and must be found in something completely different, that goes beyond our comprehension, is not that silly.
If that's a god, my God or just another system of natural laws, there's nothing rationally to say about that though.

[kentonio]

Stating that I rationally conclude that there are very good odds that the origins of our universe/system are outside our understanding and must be found in something completely different, that goes beyond our comprehension, is not that silly.
If that's a god, my God or just another system of natural laws, there's nothing rationally to say about that though.

That's fair. There has to be something incredible behind it unless we poor humans just can't wrap our heads around the concept of infinity. Personally I find the idea of an intelligent god to cause more problems than it creates, but like you say we're so far away from the knowledge of how any of it works that there really isn't a particularly rational position to take on the whole thing. I do think however that the answer falls within the realms of science regardless. If theres some super being at the heart of it all, then that is no less scientific than anything else.

[Aeson]

We don't know for sure, but so far everything we have encountered need a cause and space.
It's therefore not a very weird philosophical statement to make that there are good odds that all elements in our universe need a cause and a size, and that therefore most probably our universe itself (which is in fact no more or less then the sum of all parts of the universe) need a cause and a size.

It has nothing to do with 'creation' of the universe. It can be very well that the universe has been caused by and from something else in a different system with different laws of nature, beyond our understanding.

You keep falling back to the universe needing a cause outside itself. That isn't a supportable statement to make.

Your analogy to a factory is bad, because a factory does have to be created. So if you weren't trying to imply the universe needed to be created (whether by God or some other natural method) it was a poor choice of analog.

(eventhough there's nothing that leads us to believe that the universe needs no cause, just wishful thinking).

That's a badly worded statement that takes something true (lack of evidence) and then uses it to make an implication that can't be proven. If you're going to go there ... there's nothing that leads us to believe that God even exists.

My own statements about the fact we can't say the universe needed a cause outside itself is not wishful thinking. It's simply an admission of the truth that we don't know. (My own wishful thinking would be that there were a simple and verifiable answer. Either way, it wouldn't matter to me.)

But I'm not saying the above to say something about both individual statements.
I am stating that claiming that "if God needs no cause, the universe needs no cause either" is a stupid statement, philosophically.
(In fact as much silly it is to state that "If the Universe needs no cause then God needs no cause either")

Do you agree with that?

Certainly the statements shouldn't be meant literally, as the functionality of God and the universe could obviously be different, and neither necessarily would be part of the causal process of the other. Such a statement is almost surely not meant in that literal way though. The statements in regards to what allowances are being made for each option could be a valid way to point out the hypocrisy of someone claiming one needs a cause while the other doesn't.

The purpose of an analogy is far from it being correct, from proving something.
It's just to make something clear. It helps you to understand my way of thinking. Discussing if an analogy was proper or not is a silly waste of time. The question is if it helped you to understand what I was trying to state.

They are essentially the same question. ("Is the analogy proper" and "did it help illustrate the point") The value in the analogy is to illustrate a point. If your analogy doesn't make the point you want it to, or not very clearly, or makes points you didn't mean it to, then it's not very good. If the analogs you draw don't hold up under scrutiny, it's definitely worse than if they do. Not just because of the value of the analog in and of itself, but because the analogs you choose make implications of their own.

[Kidlicious]

That's fair. There has to be something incredible behind it unless we poor humans just can't wrap our heads around the concept of infinity. Personally I find the idea of an intelligent god to cause more problems than it creates, but like you say we're so far away from the knowledge of how any of it works that there really isn't a particularly rational position to take on the whole thing. I do think however that the answer falls within the realms of science regardless. If theres some super being at the heart of it all, then that is no less scientific than anything else.

It's really not that hard to understand. Proof is another matter, but it's really not that difficult. You're talking as if it's some crazy idea that God created the universe that you can't just wrap your head around, but the fact is that it makes sense. You keep saying thatt it's something incredible that the human mind can't comprehend but it's obviously a miracle.

Do you know why people believed that the earth was flat? Because it really seemed like it was flat. That was a reasonable belief. And almost always those things are true. Only in the rare case are we wrong about those things. Usually it's just what it looks like.

[kentonio]

It's really not that hard to understand. Proof is another matter, but it's really not that difficult. You're talking as if it's some crazy idea that God created the universe that you can't just wrap your head around, but the fact is that it makes sense. You keep saying thatt it's something incredible that the human mind can't comprehend but it's obviously a miracle.

No, it doesn't make any sense to me. I don't believe in miracles, and I find your blind faith in things you have no confirmation of to be something I cannot in any way relate to. I think we should just accept we have literally zero common ground here and move on, because otherwise we'll just end up insulting each other.

Do you know why people believed that the earth was flat? Because it really seemed like it was flat. That was a reasonable belief. And almost always those things are true. Only in the rare case are we wrong about those things. Usually it's just what it looks like.

Absolutely untrue. Look at the things people believed a couple of millenia ago and what we know now. The difference in knowledge since we moved away from blind assumptions is amazing.

[Kidlicious]

No, it doesn't make any sense to me. I don't believe in miracles, and I find your blind faith in things you have no confirmation of to be something I cannot in any way relate to. I think we should just accept we have literally zero common ground here and move on, because otherwise we'll just end up insulting each other.

I don't care if we have common ground here or not. I know that I have common ground with others who believe things strongly even though they don't have confirmation because to them it's common sense, and usually common sense is true.

Absolutely untrue. Look at the things people believed a couple of millenia ago and what we know now. The difference in knowledge since we moved away from blind assumptions is amazing.

That has nothing to do with it. I'm not saying that science is wrong. Science doesn't tell us anything. There are many beliefs that we all hold that aren't based on science at all. Yet we believe strongly about them, and we are usually right. Sometimes we believe what we want and it gets us into trouble, but when we don't we are usually right.

[notyoueither]

Do you know why people believed that the earth was flat? Because it really seemed like it was flat. That was a reasonable belief. And almost always those things are true. Only in the rare case are we wrong about those things. Usually it's just what it looks like.

Actually, it's been pretty obvious for a very long time that the Earth is something other than flat.

It was mainly religious dogma that held us back in our understanding of the world, the universe, and our place in it. Thankfully, that is not the case now (for the most part).

[notyoueither]

Also, most 'reasonable beliefs' that were held 2,000 years ago about the world and how it works in anything but immediate phenomena (like if you plant a seed grain might grow) did turn out to be wrong.

[Kidlicious]

Also, most 'reasonable beliefs' that were held 2,000 years ago about the world and how it works in anything but immediate phenomena (like if you plant a seed grain might grow) did turn out to be wrong.

I'm talking about common sense, which has nothing to do with the knowledge of things like the atom or future technologies.