-
oppose 20% · Bertrand Russellmoderated to 80%; argued down by 60%
by Brainix on 2005-12-16 19:26:52 -
oppose 100% · Re: Bertrand Russellmoderated to 100%; argued down by 0%
by yqbd on 2007-12-17 06:02:01Bertrand Russell's problem is with what he think the First Cause argument is. He writes that it is "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.", but it's more like "everything that has a beginning has a cause" or "every effect has a cause". The First Cause is not an effect, so the First Cause does not have a cause. -
support 0% · Re: Bertrand Russellmoderated to 0%; argued down by 0%
by anonymous on 2013-06-03 17:32:49If we agree that all effects must have a cause, then by necessity there must be an un-caused cause. -
(comment) 100% · Re: Bertrand Russellmoderated to 100%
by martinking on 2013-08-07 18:49:11Why must there be an un-caused cause, couldn't there just be an infinite chain of causes? If we accept all events have a cause doesn't that mean it is impossible for there to be a first event, or God? I think this question arises out of two contradictory claims- 1) every event has a cause, 2) there is an event that didn't have a cause or caused itself, So I think this is a riddle that doesn't have a satisfactory answer. Furthermore saying there is a first cause and it is called "God", seems like a very superficial solution. I don't think it really helps us understand the causes of things, and it is certainly a long leap from this idea to the view that God wrote the bible or any of the other ideas we have about God.
summary
title: 'Re: Bertrand Russell'
text: 'Why must there be an un-caused cause, couldn't there just be an infinite chain of causes? If we accept all events have a cause doesn't that mean it is impossible for there to be a first event, or God? I think this question arises out of two contradictory claims- 1) every event has a cause, 2) there is an event that didn't have a cause or caused itself, So I think this is a riddle that doesn't have a satisfactory answer. Furthermore saying there is a first cause and it is called "God", seems like a very superficial solution. I don't think it really helps us understand the causes of things, and it is certainly a long leap from this idea to the view that God wrote the bible or any of the other ideas we have about God.'
tags: martinking,
date: 2013-08-07 18:49:11
submitter: martinking
effective: 1
support: 0
oppose: 0
stancePos: 1
stanceNeg: 0
stanceEffective:
repliesSupport: 0
repliesOppose: 0
repliesTotal: 0
comments: 0
Powered by Debatepoint.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.