Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: pellius on February 19, 2016, 03:06:51 AM
-
Warning: This is not for the average GetBigger. Only those that are really, really interested in this topic and is willing to endure more endless walls of text from me. I decided to address it because 10 Pints asked a very valid question and challenged me to answer it. I knew this would be an involved undertaking but since it comes up so often, and I feel that because I've agonize, and continue to agonize, over these issues, and have gone the full gamut of believer, Agnostic for twenty years, and now back to a believer, that I can address these questions and issues competently.
My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith, i.e. belief in something in which there is no conclusive proof. It is simply to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments and dispute the notion that believers are people who can't think for themselves and are mindless sheep based on emotion and what they want and wish were so.
Again, I want to emphasize, it is to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments. And what I present, to be precise, is not so much evidence but an argument for a Creator. An argument based of reason and science and not just emotion and wishful thinking.
Belief in a Creator of the universe and the belief that the universe came out of nothing, i.e, first there was nothing: no space, no time and then bang, a Big Bang; is both a matter of faith. Which side you choose doesn't necessarily have to do with intelligence. There are smart people and stupid on both sides. It is your perspective, your world view, that partly determines this.
I find it curious that a Theist does not consider an Atheist as stupid but simply wrong. Of course an Atheist will argue that their belief is based on reason, evidence and rational argument whereas a Theist's belief is based on blind faith, emotion and up bringing.
I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.
Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.
But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his god.
Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.
And there is some confirmation of this from science, from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter came into existence around 13.7 billion years ago.
Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..
But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.
So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.
So it is not just the theist that requires faith, it is also the atheist that requires faith. It takes faith to believe that everything comes from nothing. It took reason, as I had just outlined here, that everything created came from a Creator. God.
Again, this is not meant to change anybody's mind or convert anybody though I do welcome any challenges to my SPECIFIC arguments and to my line of reasoning and the conclusions thereof. It is to dispute the notion that those who believe in God rely simply on just blind faith and wishful thinking. That we are just mindless drones believing in fairy tales that we were raised on. Also, I just touch on one aspect of the existence of a Creator. The First Cause aspect. There is more. God's fingerprints are all around us. If time and motivation is there I might present my case for that as well. The case not just for a Creator but for a God.
The reason these issues are so important is that what you believe, how you got here, is there any eternal accountability, determines your perspective on life and your perspective on life determines how you will ultimately behave. Not so much day to day, but that as well, but when you are morally challenged. It's one thing not to steal when you are rich and can have anything this world has to offer. It's quite another when you're not and really, really want something and can get away with just taking it.
-
BTW, nothing I say come from an origin thought. I have never had an origin thought or idea in my life. Everything I know is something that has been learned, said or taught by others. All I try to do is think it through for myself and determine what makes sense, what makes some sense and what is nonsense.
-
There are scientists who have great arguments why god would be real. And there are scientists who have great arguments why god would not be real.
You can't talk about this subject if you're biased. Most people are biased and are willing to look at things from the other side and refuse to acknowledge the other.
Anyway, I'm out of this conversation, just wanted to say that it's wether you want to believe or not. Adios.
"Don't talk about things you don't know shit about" - Some big bearded old man, somewhere, this one time
-
I believe in the Matrix
-
There are scientists who have great arguments why god would be real. And there are scientists who have great arguments why god would not be real.
You can't talk about this subject if you're biased. Most people are biased and are willing to look at things from the other side and refuse to acknowledge the other.
Anyway, I'm out of this conversation, just wanted to say that it's wether you want to believe or not. Adios.
"Don't talk about things you don't know shit about" - Some big bearded old man, somewhere, this one time
Again, this is not meant to change anybody's mind or convert anybody though I do welcome any challenges to my SPECIFIC arguments and to my line of reasoning and the conclusions thereof.
My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith, i.e. belief in something in which there is no conclusive proof. It is simply to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments...
"You can't talk about this subject if you're biased."
I feel that because I've agonize, and continue to agonize, over these issues, and have gone the full gamut of believer, Agnostic for twenty years, and now back to a believer, that I can address these questions and issues competently.
-
To make it short...
Answer = No.
Even a creator cannot create him-/her-/itself.
And a creator cannot emerge from nothing.
Nothing (read: "No thing") can emerge from nothing.
And nothing can exist forever.
So if we deal with "the existence of a creator"...
we will have to take into account the "creator" of said "creator" also...
HTH
-
Before a bigbang was another big bang, expansion, contraction, expansion, contraction, dual cycles, just like everywhere you find in universe. So - no begining/no end, these are just creations of our mind, because we exist in a reality that has "begining" and "end", it does not have to be applied to universe. When you have no end, there is no need to have a begining and vice versa. WHat you see around is not so complex as it looks. A simple mathematical equation with a few variables can be used to draw an extraordonary complex fractals, extraorinary. It means that from a great simplicity is possible to create a great complexity (and it is obvious from equations like these).
The funny thing is - we are the same universe and it's the universe that is trying to understand itself, we are not "by standers", it's universe reflecting on it's inner workings and most probably this is all there is to calculate, because, well... once you solve the puzzle - there's nothing else to solve. We may be close or far to solving that puzzle (and it probably would be a very dissapointing revelation for many, like... no "magic", no "interesting mystical story" or other extraoirdinary stuff, just a simple existence, plain, boring, routine, a simple mathematical equation), the fact is - we are still just a bunch of ants procereating on this shitball called earth, a mirco dust in a vast universe that is as significant as one ant in a forest is significant to us.
In another sense - we are "gods", universe is "god", everything is "god", but in it's essence - it doesn't matter how you will call it, it's just of a non value for anyone.
Hope this helps
-
My question is, if there is a creator how fucked up is he that he lets all these religions just kill and torture each other?
Why not hit the reset button or settle the score? It's hard to believe some thing could be both a grand creator as well as a despicable asshole.
-
My question is, if there is a creator how fucked up is he that he lets all these religions just kill and torture each other?
Why not hit the reset button or settle the score? It's hard to believe some thing could be both a grand creator as well as a despicable asshole.
That "creator" probably was a saddistic asshole and created a survival game. "Game of Genes", everyone are fighting for the Throne, everyone feel right and deserving it. The fittest survive, pretty much all there is to it. Enjoy the blood bath, world is on a brink of another big fight just to start the same cycle once again, just like in every other species when it gets too tight.
-
(http://media.tumblr.com/74a3021c0fbf2a5f10eae4e51e2a2d01/tumblr_mx68kxSpMA1skyr7eo4_400.gif)
-
My question is, if there is a creator how fucked up is he that he lets all these religions just kill and torture each other?
Why not hit the reset button or settle the score? It's hard to believe some thing could be both a grand creator as well as a despicable asshole.
God (or, Yahweh or whatever) is laissez-faire when it comes to all of this
he/she/it doesn't give a shit
he doesn't let any religion do anything...."God" gave us free will....part of that free will is to write books that are heavily misinterpreted and that cause some people to blow up government buildings
as an aside- just remember----religion and God ARE NOT mutually exclusive
you don't need to subscribe to Showtime to watch episodes of "Dexter"
btw- the above isn't a valid argument because i didn't copy and paste it from one of the fanatical authors that people like to quote when these megathreads that pit god vs atheists occur.......
I'm a weirdo because I'd like my opinions to be worded with my own words rather than say C.S. Lewis or Christopher Hitchens
-
doesn't even matter
-
To make it short...
Answer = No.
Even a creator cannot create him-/her-/itself.
And a creator cannot emerge from nothing.
Nothing (read: "No thing") can emerge from nothing.
And nothing can exist forever.
So if we deal with "the existence of a creator"...
we will have to take into account the "creator" of said "creator" also...
HTH
The premise is that a Creator has always existed and the argument for that has just been presented.
Saying that nothing can exist forever is just your opinion and you have no evidence to support that.
The argument is that the casual chain can't go backwards forever. It eventually begins with a creator. A creator always existed. It had no beginning and no end. The universe did have a beginning and it is predicted to have an end. So because it did not always existed it had to have something that created it.
You believe that something came from nothing. I don't know why that is a more rational argument than a Creator. Maybe if people stop imagining a Creator as a long haired man with a beard.
Do you have a rational argument and scientific reasoning to support your belief that something came from nothing? I used laws of causality to support the my belief. What laws in science do you have to support your belief that something came from nothing. Can you dispute any specific argument I just made?
But again, the purpose is not agreement, but that belief in a Creator can be made using rational arguments. I sure would like to hear your argument that something came from nothing. That the universe, which had a beginning, just began out of nothing, out of nowhere. What laws of causality or any laws of nature can you use to support your claim as I have just done? Using laws of nature and real world observations ("things move" and that nothing moves without a cause).
-
Before a bigbang was another big bang, expansion, contraction, expansion, contraction, dual cycles, just like everywhere you find in universe. So - no begining/no end, these are just creations of our mind, because we exist in a reality that has "begining" and "end", it does not have to be applied to universe. When you have no end, there is no need to have a begining and vice versa. WHat you see around is not so complex as it looks. A simple mathematical equation with a few variables can be used to draw an extraordonary complex fractals, extraorinary. It means that from a great simplicity is possible to create a great complexity (and it is obvious from equations like these).
The funny thing is - we are the same universe and it's the universe that is trying to understand itself, we are not "by standers", it's universe reflecting on it's inner workings and most probably this is all there is to calculate, because, well... once you solve the puzzle - there's nothing else to solve. We may be close or far to solving that puzzle (and it probably would be a very dissapointing revelation for many, like... no "magic", no "interesting mystical story" or other extraoirdinary stuff, just a simple existence, plain, boring, routine, a simple mathematical equation), the fact is - we are still just a bunch of ants procereating on this shitball called earth, a mirco dust in a vast universe that is as significant as one ant in a forest is significant to us.
In another sense - we are "gods", universe is "god", everything is "god", but in it's essence - it doesn't matter how you will call it, it's just of a non value for anyone.
Hope this helps
No it doesn't help. Can you provide evidence to invalidate that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity "All time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME."
And again, theist are thought to be silly and irrational for believing in a creator then I hear:
Before a bigbang was another big bang, expansion, contraction, expansion, contraction, dual cycles, just like everywhere you find in universe. So - no begining/no end,
we are "gods", universe is "god", everything is "god"
Just a statement with no argument or evidence: the first one already proved by Einstein to be wrong and the second one just a flower child like pronouncement. "We are all God." "We are the Unverse". "We are everything".
Sounds rational and based on reason? Any arguments to support this claim? Can you please present this "simple" mathematical equation that you referred to.
-
The premise is that a Creator has always existed and the argument for that has just been presented.
Saying that nothing can exist forever is just your opinion and you have no evidence to support that.
The argument is that the casual chain can't go backwards forever. It eventually begins with a creator. A creator always existed. It had no beginning and no end. The universe did have a beginning and it is predicted to have an end. So because it did not always existed it had to have something that created it.
You believe that something came from nothing. I don't know why that is a more rational argument than a Creator. Maybe if people stop imagining a Creator as a long haired man with a beard.
Do you have a rational argument and scientific reasoning to support your belief that something came from nothing? I used laws of causality to support the my belief. What laws in science do you have to support your belief that something came from nothing. Can you dispute any specific argument I just made?
But again, the purpose is not agreement, but that belief in a Creator can be made using rational arguments. I sure would like to hear your argument that something came from nothing. That the universe, which had a beginning, just began out of nothing, out of nowhere. What laws of causality or any laws of nature can you use to support your claim as I have just done? Using laws of nature and real world observations ("things move" and that nothing moves without a cause).
Nothing can come from nothing, therefore something must have created the creator...
or else there is no possibility for a creator to exist out of thin air.
That's basically what I meant.
So...
If we have a creator we have something existing prior to the creator also which created said creator.
Basically some kind of endless loop.
The creator cannot create him-/her-/itself or appear out of nothing.
-
My question is, if there is a creator how fucked up is he that he lets all these religions just kill and torture each other?
Why not hit the reset button or settle the score? It's hard to believe some thing could be both a grand creator as well as a despicable asshole.
A totally valid and what I believe to be the most important question that can be pose for a God that is supposed to be all loving.
But please note my argument is for a Creator. That a rational argument can be made for the existence of a Creator.
Whether there is a God that is moral and good is a separate and far more complex issue entirely.
I was always told that there will come a time where I will have to answer for myself. How I lived my life and was I in the end a good man. Did my moral bank account have more deposits than withdrawals. And I believe that.
But I also believe that I am not the only one who will have to answer for myself. Of all the worlds and all the scenarios that a presumably all powerful God could create, why this way? Why a world where bad and evil outweigh the good and bad?
-
God (or, Yahweh or whatever) is laissez-faire when it comes to all of this
he/she/it doesn't give a shit
he doesn't let any religion do anything...."God" gave us free will....part of that free will is to write books that are heavily misinterpreted and that cause some people to blow up government buildings
as an aside- just remember----religion and God ARE NOT mutually exclusive
you don't need to subscribe to Showtime to watch episodes of "Dexter"
btw- the above isn't a valid argument because i didn't copy and paste it from one of the fanatical authors that people like to quote when these megathreads that pit god vs atheists occur.......
I'm a weirdo because I'd like my opinions to be worded with my own words rather than say C.S. Lewis or Christopher Hitchens
I don't know what category to put you in but you are a legit genius.
-
Nothing can come from nothing, therefore something must have created the creator...
or else there is no possibility for a creator to exist out of thin air.
That's basically what I meant.
So...
If we have a creator we have something existing prior to the creator also which created said creator.
Basically some kind of endless loop.
The creator cannot create him-/her-/itself or appear out of nothing.
If there is no God, then you would have the same problem...where did everything come from? Nothing created something?
There IS a God. The reason people struggle with this is because they think God has to be just like them, but they're wrong.
There are three things that MUST be in place for our universe to exist. Time, Space, and Matter. Without time, there is no starting place. Without Space, there is no place to put matter, and without matter, there would be nothing here. God created all three in the very first verse of the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Where did God come from then? Well, since God created time, then he must by necessity exist outside of time. You cannot create something totally new such as time, if you exist inside of time. God is not like man that is finite and can only understand things based on time because that is the universe we exist in. It is hard for our minds to wrap themselves around the idea that God can have no beginning because he created time.
So which makes more sense:
A: God created this world.
or
B: Nothing created everything. It all just popped out of no where.
The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.
-
If there is no God, then you would have the same problem...where did everything come from? Nothing created something?
There IS a God. The reason people struggle with this is because they think God has to be just like them, but they're wrong.
There are three things that MUST be in place for our universe to exist. Time, Space, and Matter. Without time, there is no starting place. Without Space, there is no place to put matter, and without matter, there would be nothing here. God created all three in the very first verse of the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Where did God come from then? Well, since God created time, then he must by necessity exist outside of time. You cannot create something totally new such as time, if you exist inside of time. God is not like man that is finite and can only understand things based on time because that is the universe we exist in. It is hard for our minds to wrap themselves around the idea that God can have no beginning because he created time.
So which makes more sense:
A: God created this world.
or
B: Nothing created everything. It all just popped out of no where.
The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.
or
C: We don't know.
-
The mysteries of the universe. Mysteries that are too mind boggling for our minds to comprehend at the moment. How could something be infinite? How could something last forever? How could something have "always been there"?
I currently believe in a creator God although that could be more that I just hope there is a creator, since it will give life purpose.
-
No it doesn't help. Can you provide evidence to invalidate that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity "All time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME."
And again, theist are thought to be silly and irrational for believing in a creator then I hear:
Before a bigbang was another big bang, expansion, contraction, expansion, contraction, dual cycles, just like everywhere you find in universe. So - no begining/no end,
we are "gods", universe is "god", everything is "god"
Just a statement with no argument or evidence: the first one already proved by Einstein to be wrong and the second one just a flower child like pronouncement. "We are all God." "We are the Unverse". "We are everything".
Sounds rational and based on reason? Any arguments to support this claim? Can you please present this "simple" mathematical equation that you referred to.
What "time"? There's no such thing as time, only constant change/"happening", movement of electrons, quarks and whtever the hell else there is. If there's no time - speaking about the "begining" is futile. More likely it was just a phase of an infinite cycle, no clear boundaries, just a non ending transition of energy, a gigantic fluctuation/vibration, whole universe is one big vibration (they call it "string theory").
If notion that we are the universe doesn't sound rational, than I don't what what does. Our physical bodies make us think that we are "separate", but it's the same matter, a material of space that's interwoven and one as a whole, so yeah... we are the universle itself, it's universe "thinking" about itself, we are trying to calculate vibrations by using the same vibrations, it's a zero zum game, a finite calculation and if/when we get there - there won't be anything more to calculate. Universe is PROBABLY a lot more simple than we would like it to be and that is saddening for many people, because them they doesn't find a reason to suffer, they doesn't see a point to fight another day for their life... Believeing in god is better, it gives a hope, a meaning for this intelligent ape we call homo sapiens. At our core we are still just a collection of atoms, working based on core physical principles, a collection of single replicators called "genes" (which are pretty primitive one by one) working in company to help each other to survive (so creating a body).
-
If there is no God, then you would have the same problem...where did everything come from? Nothing created something?
There IS a God. The reason people struggle with this is because they think God has to be just like them, but they're wrong.
There are three things that MUST be in place for our universe to exist. Time, Space, and Matter. Without time, there is no starting place. Without Space, there is no place to put matter, and without matter, there would be nothing here. God created all three in the very first verse of the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Where did God come from then? Well, since God created time, then he must by necessity exist outside of time. You cannot create something totally new such as time, if you exist inside of time. God is not like man that is finite and can only understand things based on time because that is the universe we exist in. It is hard for our minds to wrap themselves around the idea that God can have no beginning because he created time.
So which makes more sense:
A: God created this world.
or
B: Nothing created everything. It all just popped out of no where.
The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.
I like the way you put this. Of course one could say, and do say, that time always existed. But science says otherwise.
Again my purpose was not to convince anybody or prove anything. Only that a rational argument based of science can be made for the existence of a Creator. It is science that says the universe is 13.7 billion years old. One would have to dismiss Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to say that time existed before that and therefore forfeit the mantle rationality and science based reasoning.
-
...
Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.
But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his god.
Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.
...
Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..
...
The Aquinas argument is simply a variation of the Aristotelian argument for an ultimate cause. You should check out the book "The five ways" by Anthony Kelly for a refutation. On that note- there is a reason modern biology is not Aristotelian.
The Big Bang argument is not valid either- the universe/multiverse could be an endless loop of big bangs- expansions and contractions to new big bangs, thus it could have no start or end- only cycles.
Finally, if nothing starts without a cause, why is there an exception for the "Big Banger"? This makes no sense and for me it invalidates the whole argument.
NN
-
The mysteries of the universe. Mysteries that are too mind boggling for our minds to comprehend at the moment. How could something be infinite? How could something last forever? How could something have "always been there"?
I currently believe in a creator God although that could be more that I just hope there is a creator, since it will give life purpose.
Why is it hard to believe that something outside of space and time always existed.
-
Why is it hard to believe that something outside of space and time always existed.
because we haven't found the boundaries of space or time yet.
-
Why is it hard to believe that something outside of space and time always existed.
Doesn't it need space and time for something to exist?
Or at least space?
-
What "time"? There's no such thing as time, only constant change/"happening", movement of electrons, quarks and whtever the hell else there is. If there's no time - speaking about the "begining" is futile. More likely it was just a phase of an infinite cycle, no clear boundaries, just a non ending transition of energy, a gigantic fluctuation/vibration, whole universe is one big vibration (they call it "string theory").
If notion that we are the universe doesn't sound rational, than I don't what what does. Our physical bodies make us think that we are "separate", but it's the same matter, a material of space that's interwoven and one as a whole, so yeah... we are the universle itself, it's universe "thinking" about itself, we are trying to calculate vibrations by using the same vibrations, it's a zero zum game, a finite calculation and if/when we get there - there won't be anything more to calculate. Universe is PROBABLY a lot more simple than we would like it to be and that is saddening for many people, because them they doesn't find a reason to suffer, they doesn't see a point to fight another day for their life... Believeing in god is better, it gives a hope, a meaning for this intelligent ape we call homo sapiens. At our core we are still just a collection of atoms, working based on core physical principles, a collection of single replicators called "genes" (which are pretty primitive one by one) working in company to help each other to survive (so creating a body).
As in our last discussion, you ignore a simple straight forward question.
"There is no such thing as time."
OK, you can believe that. But science says otherwise. My purpose of this thread is to show an argument can be made using science and reason to argue for the existence of a Creator.
If you are going to appeal to arguments outside of science and reason then that is best left to another thread.
-
Why is it hard to believe that something outside of space and time always existed.
Easier to suppress the truth than follow it....for many life is less fun with God's rules.....can't watch porn, can't use rec drugs, can't abuse alcohol, etc...pick your poison.
Of course all this disguised with "we have no evidence or proof" so better to pretend God isn't there and call him a foolish waste yet argue about him everyday all day.
People invent other excuses to suppress accountability, but that's the core and everything I said will be challenged, mocked or ignored.
-
Why is it hard to believe that something outside of space and time always existed.
The thought of something that has no beginning and no end, is something that is impossible to comprehend. Even putting God into the equation doesn't really solve the problem because it just leads to the following question - "What came before God?"
-
The Aquinas argument is simply a variation of the Aristotelian argument for an ultimate cause. You should check out the book "The five ways" by Anthony Kelly for a refutation. On that note- there is a reason modern biology is not Aristotelian.
The Big Bang argument is not valid either- the universe/multiverse could be an endless loop of big bangs- expansions and contractions to new big bangs, thus it could have no start or end- only cycles.
Finally, if nothing starts without a cause, why is there an exception for the "Big Banger"? This makes no sense and for me it invalidates the whole argument.
NN
You can believe that but, again, my purpose was to prove that an argument based of science and reason can be made for the existence of God. Modern day science is overwhelming in agreement that the universe had a beginning -- a Big Bang.
You can dispute modern science but for the purposes of this thread I will not. Disproving modern day science is best left for another thread but is perhaps beyond the scope of this board. I'm not sure how many professional cosmologist and astrophysicist we have on this board.
And again, I can't prove anything. You might be right. But your reasoning is not based on modern day, near universal acceptance, of modern day science. I want to keep arguments confined to modern day science.
-
The thought of something that has no beginning and no end, is something that is impossible to comprehend. Even putting God into the equation doesn't really solve the problem because it just leads to the following question - "What came before God?"
Essentially everything that begins has a cause, but God transcends time and space (even if we don't fully comprehend the boundaries of either). If we subject God to the boundaries he transcends then we imply something greater before him that existed and that becomes "God". It's an infinite regression that doesn't work. God has always existed from everlasting to everlasting. We're created beings bound by time and have only existed within a state of time. God stands outside time, initiated time and can comprehend all facets of time (past, present and future) at once. God is essentially causeless and therefore has no beginning...he's timeless. We can't comprehend that idea, but our ignorance doesn't make it untrue. We can't comprehend the divinity of God anymore than an ant can comprehend our humanity.
-
A Catholic seminarian told me this joke once.
-
The Aquinas argument is simply a variation of the Aristotelian argument for an ultimate cause. You should check out the book "The five ways" by Anthony Kelly for a refutation. On that note- there is a reason modern biology is not Aristotelian.
The Big Bang argument is not valid either- the universe/multiverse could be an endless loop of big bangs- expansions and contractions to new big bangs, thus it could have no start or end- only cycles.
Finally, if nothing starts without a cause, why is there an exception for the "Big Banger"? This makes no sense and for me it invalidates the whole argument.
NN
I forgot to address this last statement. The most important one in your post.
The premise is that the Creator is the Big Banger. The Creator always existed outside of space and time. That the casual chain has to eventually end and come to a First Cause.
Now you can reject that and you can reject Einstein's theory of General Relativity but then you would have reject science. Remember, science shows that the universe and time had a beginning. And if you reject that then there would have had to be an infinite number or previous Big Bangs and then one would have to ask why is this anymore rational than the proven General Theory of Relativity.
Again, I can't prove anything. I can only present arguments and leave to you to determine what is more likely and unless you can argue otherwise you should be honest enough to admit that you are now arguing outside the realm of science which was the purpose of this thread.
-
You can believe that but, again, my purpose was to prove that an argument based of science and reason can be made for the existence of God. Modern day science is overwhelming in agreement that the universe had a beginning -- a Big Bang.
You can dispute modern science but for the purposes of this thread I will not. Disproving modern day science is best left for another thread but is perhaps beyond the scope of this board. I'm not sure how many professional cosmologist and astrophysicist we have on this board.
And again, I can't prove anything. You might be right. But your reasoning is not based on modern day, near universal acceptance, of modern day science. I want to keep arguments confined to modern day science.
I did not try to refute Big Bang, but tried simply to state that we know nothing about what was, if anything, before Big Bang or if there even was a "before" the Big Bang. It may not make any sense.
At present, we do not know whether the universe will expand forever or if it eventually will contract and implode. You can see where the "cycling universe" hypothesis comes from if the universe in fact will implode some time in the future(?)
NN
-
Essentially everything that begins has a cause, but God transcends time and space (even if we don't fully comprehend the boundaries of either). If we subject God to the boundaries he transcends then we imply something greater before him that existed and that becomes "God". It's an infinite regression that doesn't work. God has always existed from everlasting to everlasting. We're created beings bound by time and have only existed within a state of time. God stands outside time, initiated time and can comprehend all facets of time (past, present and future) at once. God is essentially causeless and therefore has no beginning...he's timeless. We can't comprehend that idea, but our ignorance doesn't make it untrue. We can't comprehend the divinity of God anymore than an ant can comprehend our humanity.
I agree that human ignorance makes us unable to comprehend the scale and infinity of the universe/God. It just appears to be something too vast to fully understand (at least now).
We are only familiar with things that have a beginning and an end and cannot comprehend something that transcends that.
I'm not religious/spiritual but I do think of Revelation 22:13 when I ponder the origins of the universe, partly because it sounds pretty cool. :D
-
Doesn't it need space and time for something to exist?
Or at least space?
The belief is that the Creator is not compose of matter. The Creator is outside of space and time. A very difficult concept to conceive.
Remember, as that funny book "Flatline" pointed out. We can perceive our dimension and the dimensions below us, but not the ones above us. Science has show that there exist a dimension at least one above us.
-
I agree that human ignorance makes us unable to comprehend the scale and infinity of the universe/God. It just appears to be something too vast to fully understand (at least now).
We are only familiar with things that have a beginning and an end and cannot comprehend something that transcends that.
I'm not religious/spiritual but I do think of Revelation 22:13 when I ponder the origins of the universe, partly because it sounds pretty cool. :D
That's the essence of God!
I appreciate how you dialogue in these threads.
-
I did not try to refute Big Bang, but tried simply to state that we know nothing about what was, if anything, before Big Bang or if there even was a "before" the Big Bang. It may not make any sense.
At present, we do not know whether the universe will expand forever or if it eventually will contract and implode. You can see where the "cycling universe" hypothesis comes for if the universe in fact will implode some time in the future(?)
NN
Agreed.
We really know nothing.
All is just believing in one theory or another.
Only is it sad people need to kill other people for their belief in different theories.
It's absurd.
-
I forgot to address this last statement. The most important one in your post.
The premise is that the Creator is the Big Banger. The Creator always existed outside of space and time. That the casual chain has to eventually end and come to a First Cause....
Again, I can't prove anything. I can only present arguments and leave to you to determine what is more likely and unless you can argue otherwise you should be honest enough to admit that you are now arguing outside the realm of science which was the purpose of this thread.
Your position is self-referentially inconsistent. You have no evidence of any "Creator" outside of space and time whatsoever, yet you are perfectly willing to postulate the existence of this hypothetical entity as the creator of the universe. That is not science- it metaphysical speculation, which is fair enough, but please do not try to take the high ground regarding science.
NN
-
'I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.'
Nice. Laugh of the day. ;D
-
-
The thought of something that has no beginning and no end, is something that is impossible to comprehend. Even putting God into the equation doesn't really solve the problem because it just leads to the following question - "What came before God?"
I don't have any difficulty comprehending the concept of eternity and infinity. I majored in Math/Applied science and the thought that numbers go forward and backwards forever wasn't a concept I struggled with.
I remember when my niece, who was six at time, once told me that it doesn't make sense that numbers go on forever. That everything has to come to an end. I just told her to think of the biggest number she can possibly conceive and then just add one to it.
She had an "Aha!" moment.
-
I happen to agree with the OP. To believe that the creation of matter or the existence of atoms can come from nothing is foolhardy. To believe that this glorious planet of ours is the result of two lifeless meteors striking each other is absurd. To think that a single explosion gave us flowers, insects, fish, zebras, gorillas, and smoking hot chicks with warm and cozy vaginas and that we all evolved from a tadpole is more unbelievable than anything the bible can come up with. God is smart and sneaky. He knew that our scientific efforts to disprove Him would coincide with our ability to destroy ourselves en masse.
If this were a movie, the moment the astrophysicist created life from two inanimate objects would be the moment that a nuclear holocaust begins.
-
I did not try to refute Big Bang, but tried simply to state that we know nothing about what was, if anything, before Big Bang or if there even was a "before" the Big Bang. It may not make any sense.
At present, we do not know whether the universe will expand forever or if it eventually will contract and implode. You can see where the "cycling universe" hypothesis comes from if the universe in fact will implode some time in the future(?)
NN
Science has determined that the universe is 13.7 years old. Einstein tells us that all time is relative to matter. So no matter, no time. So because science has shown that the universe had a beginning there is nothing before the Big Bang if you are going to base your arguments on modern day science which is the purpose of this thread.
It's like asking where you were before you were born.
And I don't see the cycling that you speak of. It will implode and end or it will expand until all the stars have fizzled/exploded out of existence and then, I don't know, empty dead space. Either way the universe ends.
-
The belief is that the Creator is not compose of matter. The Creator is outside of space and time. A very difficult concept to conceive.
Remember, as that funny book "Flatline" pointed out. We can perceive our dimension and the dimensions below us, but not the ones above us. Science has show that there exist a dimension at least one above us.
I know there are different dimensions.
Still they need to exist in some kind of space.
Also there is some kind of time present. But it might be different.
Higher dimensions can be seen as matter only less dense.
Just like water.
Down below you got the frozen dense water, ice.
When you go higher things will be less dense.
Regarding water increase the temperature (vibration of molecules) and you will get liquid eventually.
Then steam eventually. (vibration frequency is even higher)
Going hand in hand with the expansion of said "water".
->Higher dimensions are basically still matter only less dense and higher in vibrational frequency.
So...
Everything existing in those (higher) dimensions will not exist eternally.
Since every appearance came into existence at one point in "time" and must therefore vanish later on.
Blabla wall of text...
Nothing will/can exist "outside" those dimensions.
There is no time, no space.
For god to exist "inside" those dimensions...
He/she/it will not be eternal and require additionial creators beforehand.
For god to exist "outside" those dimensions...
He/she/it will be basically "nothing".
-
I happen to agree with the OP. To believe that the creation of matter or the existence of atoms can come from nothing is foolhardy. To believe that this glorious planet of ours is the result of two lifeless meteors striking each other is absurd. To think that a single explosion gave us flowers, insects, fish, zebras, gorillas, and smoking hot chicks with warm and cozy vaginas and that we all evolved from a tadpole is more unbelievable than anything the bible can come up with. God is smart and sneaky. He knew that our scientific efforts to disprove Him would coincide with our ability to destroy ourselves en masse.
If this were a movie, the moment the astrophysicist created life from two inanimate objects would be the moment that a nuclear holocaust begins.
You have just given me an idea but it involves math and statistics. And that requires books. Not sure if I'm up to it.
-
Your position is self-referentially inconsistent. You have no evidence of any "Creator" outside of space and time whatsoever, yet you are perfectly willing to postulate the existence of this hypothetical entity as the creator of the universe. That is not science- it metaphysical speculation, which is fair enough, but please do not try to take the high ground regarding science.
NN
Can you please give an example of my self-referential inconsistent position?
Again, I never claim to be able to prove anything and specifically stated that I will present arguments, not evidence, based on modern day science.
Now if you believe it is not science then can you point out a specific argument I made that you believe is based not on science and reasoning but on metaphysical speculation.
-
'I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.'
Nice. Laugh of the day. ;D
But, as usual, as you always do, you present not a single argument to support your claim. Point out one single argument I made that you feel is invalid and not supported by modern day science.
I won't hold my breath. You just throw a stone and retreat.
-
I know there are different dimensions.
Still they need to exist in some kind of space.
Also there is some kind of time present. But it might be different.
Higher dimensions can be seen as matter only less dense.
Just like water.
Down below you got the frozen dense water, ice.
When you go higher things will be less dense.
Regarding water increase the temperature (vibration of molecules) and you will get liquid eventually.
Then steam eventually. (vibration frequency is even higher)
Going hand in hand with the expansion of said "water".
->Higher dimensions are basically still matter only less dense and higher in vibrational frequency.
So...
Everything existing in those (higher) dimensions will not exist eternally.
Since every appearance came into existence at one point in "time" and must therefore vanish later on.
Blabla wall of text...
Nothing will/can exist "outside" those dimensions.
There is no time, no space.
For god to exist "inside" those dimensions...
He/she/it will not be eternal and require additionial creators beforehand.
For god to exist "outside" those dimensions...
He/she/it will be basically "nothing".
Thank you for your participation in this thread.
BTW, ice floats.
-
But, as usual, as you always do, you present not a single argument to support your claim. Point out one single argument I made that you feel is invalid and not supported by modern day science.
I won't hold my breath. You just throw a stone and retreat.
'Present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.'
Please do, tough guy.
-
'Present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.'
Please do, tough guy.
I just did. If there is a specific argument that you can refute then I am all ears.
I more than did my part. Now it's your turn, err, guy.
Warning: This is not for the average GetBigger. Only those that are really, really interested in this topic and is willing to endure more endless walls of text from me. I decided to address it because 10 Pints asked a very valid question and challenged me to answer it. I knew this would be an involved undertaking but since it comes up so often, and I feel that because I've agonize, and continue to agonize, over these issues, and have gone the full gamut of believer, Agnostic for twenty years, and now back to a believer, that I can address these questions and issues competently.
My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith, i.e. belief in something in which there is no conclusive proof. It is simply to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments and dispute the notion that believers are people who can't think for themselves and are mindless sheep based on emotion and what they want and wish were so.
Again, I want to emphasize, it is to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments. And what I present, to be precise, is not so much evidence but an argument for a Creator. An argument based of reason and science and not just emotion and wishful thinking.
Belief in a Creator of the universe and the belief that the universe came out of nothing, i.e, first there was nothing: no space, no time and then bang, a Big Bang; is both a matter of faith. Which side you choose doesn't necessarily have to do with intelligence. There are smart people and stupid on both sides. It is your perspective, your world view, that partly determines this.
I find it curious that a Theist does not consider an Atheist as stupid but simply wrong. Of course an Atheist will argue that their belief is based on reason, evidence and rational argument whereas a Theist's belief is based on blind faith, emotion and up bringing.
I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.
Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.
But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his god.
Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.
And there is some confirmation of this from science, from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter came into existence around 13.7 billion years ago.
Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..
But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.
So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.
So it is not just the theist that requires faith, it is also the atheist that requires faith. It takes faith to believe that everything comes from nothing. It took reason, as I had just outlined here, that everything created came from a Creator. God.
Again, this is not meant to change anybody's mind or convert anybody though I do welcome any challenges to my SPECIFIC arguments and to my line of reasoning and the conclusions thereof. It is to dispute the notion that those who believe in God rely simply on just blind faith and wishful thinking. That we are just mindless drones believing in fairy tales that we were raised on. Also, I just touch on one aspect of the existence of a Creator. The First Cause aspect. There is more. God's fingerprints are all around us. If time and motivation is there I might present my case for that as well. The case not just for a Creator but for a God.
The reason these issues are so important is that what you believe, how you got here, is there any eternal accountability, determines your perspective on life and your perspective on life determines how you will ultimately behave. Not so much day to day, but that as well, but when you are morally challenged. It's one thing not to steal when you are rich and can have anything this world has to offer. It's quite another when you're not and really, really want something and can get away with just taking it.
-
'My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith...'
;D
-
As in our last discussion, you ignore a simple straight forward question.
"There is no such thing as time."
OK, you can believe that. But science says otherwise. My purpose of this thread is to show an argument can be made using science and reason to argue for the existence of a Creator.
If you are going to appeal to arguments outside of science and reason then that is best left to another thread.
I actually explained a very crucial thing in this discussion: seemingly very complex creations (like these amazing fractals, or........human body) can be created from a very non-complex variables. Once you realize this - all the "magic" dissapears and the world around us suddently doesn't seem all THAT, it's actually a lot more simple that many people imagine (because few people take time to learn science).
-
Thank you for your participation in this thread.
I was hoping for a more stimulating reply.
At least you could've criticized parts of my post.
Nevertheless I'm not finished yet.
The anser to the thread title question is a solid "No." still...
-
I actually explained a very crucial thing in this discussion: seemingly very complex creations (like these amazing fractals, or........human body) can be created from a very non-complex variables. Once you realize this - all the "magic" dissapears and the world around us suddently doesn't seem all THAT, it's actually a lot more simple that many people imagine (because few people take time to learn science).
Agreed.
This material universe is basically based on math and equations.
Simple elements which form a complex whole through a myriad of combinations.
Take DNA for example.
The sum of the "universe equation" equals zero.
At any time it is in perfect balance.
-
Agreed.
This material universe is basically based on math and equations. chemistry.
Simple elements which form a complex whole through a myriad of combinations.
Take DNA for example.
The sum of the "universe equation" equals zero.
At any time it is in perfect balance.
-
Chemistry would be a level higher in my worldview, but it's legit
Seeing math at low-level.
A base.
But well...
I could be wrong.
-
Chemistry would be a level higher in my worldview, but it's legit
Seeing math at low-level.
A base.
But well...
I could be wrong.
Math is pure, but life is elemental.
/yes, i'm old
-
Math is pure, but life is elemental.
/yes, i'm old
;D
Ok, got it.
-
an argument can be made for anything.
didn't read anything posted.
will weigh in if this thread gets to min 5 pages.
-
Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..
But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.
So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.
I'm not sure this is a rational argument for the existence of a "creator".
From the quoted excerpt:"And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator."
I don't think this is true. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you wrote, but when most say "creator" they mean a sentient, omnipotent being who acted with purpose, not just the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe.
I am not entirely clear on what you are saying in this quoted portion, but it seems like you are saying that once you accept the simple fact that there was a clear beginning of the universe, you have to accept that there was an event that precipitated the beginning and that THAT event is "the creator". Is this an accurate interpretation? Or are you saying that because there was a first event there must have been a being that caused that first event?
-
Pellius,
Thanks for taking the time to create this thread. How did you make the leap from believer in a first cause, to a believer in Christianity?
-
Pellius,
Thanks for taking the time to create this thread. How did you make the leap from believer in a first cause, to a believer in Christianity?
Hi pellius. ;D
-
Warning: This is not for the average GetBigger. Only those that are really, really interested in this topic and is willing to endure more endless walls of text from me. I decided to address it because 10 Pints asked a very valid question and challenged me to answer it. I knew this would be an involved undertaking but since it comes up so often, and I feel that because I've agonize, and continue to agonize, over these issues, and have gone the full gamut of believer, Agnostic for twenty years, and now back to a believer, that I can address these questions and issues competently.
My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith, i.e. belief in something in which there is no conclusive proof. It is simply to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments and dispute the notion that believers are people who can't think for themselves and are mindless sheep based on emotion and what they want and wish were so.
Again, I want to emphasize, it is to demonstrate that you can believe in a Creator based on reason, science and rational arguments. And what I present, to be precise, is not so much evidence but an argument for a Creator. An argument based of reason and science and not just emotion and wishful thinking.
Belief in a Creator of the universe and the belief that the universe came out of nothing, i.e, first there was nothing: no space, no time and then bang, a Big Bang; is both a matter of faith. Which side you choose doesn't necessarily have to do with intelligence. There are smart people and stupid on both sides. It is your perspective, your world view, that partly determines this.
I find it curious that a Theist does not consider an Atheist as stupid but simply wrong. Of course an Atheist will argue that their belief is based on reason, evidence and rational argument whereas a Theist's belief is based on blind faith, emotion and up bringing.
I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.
Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.
Not necessarily, if something exists, it has always existed, ie nothing could never exist if something does. The flaw in the logic is to suggest all needs a creator or cause but the creator. Why can't the universe be eternal? if energy is neither created nor destroyed and energy exists, would that not be eternal? saying all needs a cause but the creator is illogical.
But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his god.
Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.
This isn't true, our math runs into something called a singularity, that is the time scales during the early moments of expansion are so small, the calculations are non-sense. This likely doesn't really exist, but is simply an artifact of our poor intellect. The singularity expanded, this is the big bang, it's an expansion, not creation, there is a misunderstanding here.
And there is some confirmation of this from science, from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter came into existence around 13.7 billion years ago.
The universe began expanding rapidly from a point of infinite density and mass, it was not the creation of it, but the expansion of this point. This point may very well have existed forever. The expansion created temporality, which is required for mass.
Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..
Why not just another big bang? or maybe a lizard creature, a big banger was not my conclusion. is there a planet spinner since planets spin?
But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.
So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.
So it is not just the theist that requires faith, it is also the atheist that requires faith. It takes faith to believe that everything comes from nothing. It took reason, as I had just outlined here, that everything created came from a Creator. God.
I am unsure what I am, likely atheist, but I believe everything always existed
Again, this is not meant to change anybody's mind or convert anybody though I do welcome any challenges to my SPECIFIC arguments and to my line of reasoning and the conclusions thereof. It is to dispute the notion that those who believe in God rely simply on just blind faith and wishful thinking. That we are just mindless drones believing in fairy tales that we were raised on. Also, I just touch on one aspect of the existence of a Creator. The First Cause aspect. There is more. God's fingerprints are all around us. If time and motivation is there I might present my case for that as well. The case not just for a Creator but for a\
God.
The reason these issues are so important is that what you believe, how you got here, is there any eternal accountability, determines your perspective on life and your perspective on life determines how you will ultimately behave. Not so much day to day, but that as well, but when you are morally challenged. It's one thing not to steal when you are rich and can have anything this world has to offer. It's quite another when you're not and really, really want something and can get away with just taking it.
-
Easier to suppress the truth than follow it....for many life is less fun with God's rules.....can't watch porn, can't use rec drugs, can't abuse alcohol, etc...pick your poison.
Of course all this disguised with "we have no evidence or proof" so better to pretend God isn't there and call him a foolish waste yet argue about him everyday all day.
People invent other excuses to suppress accountability, but that's the core and everything I said will be challenged, mocked or ignored.
Dude why the fuck would a god put these things here then punish people for them? for drinking alcohol to have fun? LOL... the highest pedophile percentage of any large corporation or body is the catholic church, god's rules aren't sane.
There is no accountability from God? he drowned the world... the animals, plants, people, pregnant woman, babies.... he fucked up.. who is the adult here?
There is no reason to believe your god is the one god if any god does exist. This all from a book, with no real valuable information.
-
I forgot to address this last statement. The most important one in your post.
The premise is that the Creator is the Big Banger. The Creator always existed outside of space and time. That the casual chain has to eventually end and come to a First Cause.
Now you can reject that and you can reject Einstein's theory of General Relativity but then you would have reject science. Remember, science shows that the universe and time had a beginning. And if you reject that then there would have had to be an infinite number or previous Big Bangs and then one would have to ask why is this anymore rational than the proven General Theory of Relativity.
Again, I can't prove anything. I can only present arguments and leave to you to determine what is more likely and unless you can argue otherwise you should be honest enough to admit that you are now arguing outside the realm of science which was the purpose of this thread.
Huh? einstein's theories don't have a calculation for outside time and space, what you are saying is non-sensical, all that exists, exists within time and space.
Your argument has logical failings, being uncaused would mean outside of time, this would then mean he is eternal. If he is eternal, how can he act? time is missing? action is temporal, you are mixing premises up and making some really bold claims.
-
'My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith...'
;D
Thank you for your generous contribution and insights into this subject matter.
-
I actually explained a very crucial thing in this discussion: seemingly very complex creations (like these amazing fractals, or........human body) can be created from a very non-complex variables. Once you realize this - all the "magic" dissapears and the world around us suddently doesn't seem all THAT, it's actually a lot more simple that many people imagine (because few people take time to learn science).
I spent a lot of time and effort in a sincere and genuine debate in our last discussion only to realized that it was all a waste of time. You simply refuse to answer a simple question.
And post like this, and all this "we are the universe", "there is no such thing as time"... is more suited to be discussed inside a Volkswagon Van in a high school parking lot with a bong pipe being passed around.
I want to have a serious discussion and within the confines of modern day science and not be distracted and lead astray and once again have my time and effort wasted.
-
I was hoping for a more stimulating reply.
At least you could've criticized parts of my post.
Nevertheless I'm not finished yet.
The anser to the thread title question is a solid "No." still...
Ice actually floats, it doesn't sink to the bottom.
-
Dude why the fuck would a god put these things here then punish people for them? for drinking alcohol to have fun? LOL... the highest pedophile percentage of any large corporation or body is the catholic church, god's rules aren't sane.
There is no accountability from God? he drowned the world... the animals, plants, people, pregnant woman, babies.... he fucked up.. who is the adult here?
There is no reason to believe your god is the one god if any god does exist. This all from a book, with no real valuable information.
What things did he put here to punish you for?
God didn't "create" pornography and recreational drugs.....that's all mankind's invented perversion. Not how God intended for us to govern his creation or fellowship with each other.
God doesn't condemn drinking alcohol...he condemns being a drunkard and a partier.
There's no accountability from people as it pertains to God's laws. God isn't accountable to us and yet he pronounces judgment upon the unrighteous. The flood was vehicle he chose to pronounce judgment upon the fully reprobate world....a fully evil, perverse world.
Why do you support evil and belief it should go unpunished? That's just strange to me.
There's plenty of reasons to believe in God, but so many prefer a state of sin. There's a lot more to God than "a book" but the unbelieving world has no comprehension of this.
-
Sorry, MOS but this nonsensical sophistry is a perfect example of an irrational argument for a creator. You are trying to speak with authority regarding God's existence, using scientific terms that you concede you don't fully understand, then state that just because you don't understand them it doesn't make what you are claiming untrue.
You claim that humans can't fully comprehend the boundaries of space and time...but that's ok, God transcends these boundaries that you don't comprehend. He stands outside of time (even though you don't know what time is) He also created time (conveniently), and can understand all the facets of time...therefore, he's timeless! But just because this argument makes no sense to anyone, it doesn't mean that it's untrue.
You have no authority at all for making any claims regarding what God does, yet you tell everyone with such conviction. If, as you say, human beings cannot comprehend the divinity of God, then stop trying to tell everyone the nature of God and stop trying to use concepts that you don't understand in order to sound like your argument has any sort of rational basis.
This was the question i wanted to ask. I get that Pellius is simply addressing the belief in a creator of sorts, but in addition to that, why does that then lead into a belief of a Christian God? It seems to me, that when followers of organised religion are pushed to justify their views, they end up usually only arguing for a very vague and abstract form of deism which has nothing at all to do with the fatuous dogmatism that exemplifies the Abrahamic faiths.
It isn't an argument for a creator. It's the reason God stands outside of time. Sure I understand time and space, but I don't know exactly how much time has passed since the universe began or how vast the universe is.
I'm a representative of Christ and I can speak for exactly what scripture reveals to us about God....that's what I'm doing.
-
I went shopping for a few things last night and this young guy walks up to me and asks if I had heard of God the Mother. I said are you referring to Mary? and he sais no the Bible says that God is both male and female since he created both. I didn't want to hear it and asked what church he belonged to but he said just a few minutes and he' show me. So, go through a few passages and I'd counter each point he made as an misinterpretation, After a bit he got mad and walks off and each isle I went down he would turn back around and go the other way. As I was leaving I saw him at the front entrance but the people he tried to stop blew him off. When I got home later I looked some of it up and saw this on you tube..
Sad as hell.. Religion can really ruin a person's life if they don't have a strong mind to think for themselves..
-
I'm not sure this is a rational argument for the existence of a "creator".
From the quoted excerpt:"And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator."
I don't think this is true. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you wrote, but when most say "creator" they mean a sentient, omnipotent being who acted with purpose, not just the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe.
No personal qualities in regard to purpose, motivation or intent is given, or was intended to be given in this context. Just a Creator. A First Cause. Qualities attributed to this Creator is a separate issue.
I am not entirely clear on what you are saying in this quoted portion, but it seems like you are saying that once you accept the simple fact that there was a clear beginning of the universe, you have to accept that there was an event that precipitated the beginning and that THAT event is "the creator". Is this an accurate interpretation? Or are you saying that because there was a first event there must have been a being that caused that first event?
I would replace "you have to accept" with "therefore it follows" and eliminate "there was an event that precipitated the beginning and that that event is".
The Creator is not an event. Since there was a clear beginning there must have been a "beginner".
-
Pellius,
Thanks for taking the time to create this thread. How did you make the leap from believer in a first cause, to a believer in Christianity?
Whoa! Huge shift from the original challenge. So do you concede that one can believe in a creator by using rational and science based reason? I already admitted to you that I am ill equip to deal with all the issues involved in believing in a Christian God. I am not a Biblical scholar. I thought I made that clear.
I need to clarify if you mean defending the veracity and credibility of the Bible or the existence of God.
If the former, than I cannot do it. There are so many parts that are allegorical, must be taken in their proper context, and a more substantial stretch of faith. I read the Bible regularly and I find it informative as well as an effective aid to help me sleep.
In short, it's a bit over my head.
If the debate is about evidence as to the existence of God. Then, yes, I can make a case that those that believe in God or Creator is not just based on blind faith. I, myself, was a pupil of Bertrand Russell and an Agnostic for nearly twenty years.
So it's not like I haven't struggled and examined the issues extensively.
And just to be clear, none of this has anything to do as to whether or not creation was a good idea, or even if a good job was done by a presumably omnipotent and benevolent being.
-
Can you resubmit this reply using the multiple quote function so that I can address each point you made. The way you did it makes it impossible for me to reply without having to bring up a separate window and going back and forth to reply to each point.
-
Huh? einstein's theories don't have a calculation for outside time and space, what you are saying is non-sensical, all that exists, exists within time and space.
That's right. Einstein doesn't. That's why nothing was said about "calculations outside of time and space". Don't know why you find this nonsensical.
Your argument has logical failings, being uncaused would mean outside of time, this would then mean he is eternal. If he is eternal, how can he act? time is missing? action is temporal, you are mixing premises up and making some really bold claims.
I don't know why being eternal negates action. Do you have any scientific backing for this claim?
-
I went shopping for a few things last night and this young guy walks up to me and asks if I had heard of God the Mother. I said are you referring to Mary? and he sais no the Bible says that God is both male and female since he created both. I didn't want to hear it and asked what church he belonged to but he said just a few minutes and he' show me. So, go through a few passages and I'd counter each point he made as an misinterpretation, After a bit he got mad and walks off and each isle I went down he would turn back around and go the other way. As I was leaving I saw him at the front entrance but the people he tried to stop blew him off. When I got home later I looked some of it up and saw this on you tube..
Sad as hell.. Religion can really ruin a person's life if they don't have a strong mind to think for themselves..
SERIOUSLY! I ran into the exact same type preaching the Father/Mother interpretation of the Bible! Was he Korean? What State do you live in?
We had a fascinating and provocative conversation and he made some compelling arguments. I asked him if I could have some of his pamphlets and brochures. I asked him for his number and gave him mine. He was open enough with me to answer my questions regarding how he went from Korea to Hawaii and being a Pastor of his church. Really interesting life.
It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and he really lifted my spirits and inspired me.
-
Ice actually floats, it doesn't sink to the bottom.
Exactly.
This is also because of gravity which you don't exactly have in higher dimensions.
Anyway as you correctly pointed out the analogy seems to be flawed.
Nevertheless I couldn't come up with a better one at this point.
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this matter.
-
No personal qualities in regard to purpose, motivation or intent is given, or was intended to be given in this context. Just a Creator. A First Cause. Qualities attributed to this Creator is a separate issue.
I would replace "you have to accept" with "therefore it follows" and eliminate "there was an event that precipitated the beginning and that that event is".
The Creator is not an event. Since there was a clear beginning there must have been a "beginner".
Alright. I asked you that question because I wanted to be sure of where you were coming from before I committed a response to this thread. I planned on just responding to the science aspects (I don't think that "if there was a big bang, there must have been a big banger" is a logical conclusion), but as I re-read your opening post, I'm wondering if your point is just to lay out an argument that has some semblance of logic? Something that could feasibly have happened as opposed to something you actually believe?
Because you posted this:
It is to dispute the notion that those who believe in God rely simply on just blind faith and wishful thinking. That we are just mindless drones believing in fairy tales that we were raised on.
The rationalizations that you present in this thread obviously aren't shared by most Christians. They actually seem pretty antithetical to what most Christians profess to believe. And the simple fact is that most people who belong to organized religions don't apply any type of scientific standards to quantify their faith. So, once again, I'm a little confused. I'm not sure if you're looking for a debate on the merits of your "big banger" theory and whether or not there's a stronger, more likely argument or if you're just saying that it is possible to make a rational argument regardless of whether or not it is convincing?
-
You are no more of a representative of Christ than anyone else who has ever read the bible as you have not been specifically elected to speak on behalf of him, and given that you claimed to be unable to comprehend the divinity of God, i'd argue that you'd make a pretty poor representative anyway.
Furthermore, it would appear that you aren't even aware of what it is that you are arguing for; you have posted in a thread titled "Can a rational argument be made for a creator?" and made the claim that "God has always existed", with your reasoning being that he transcends time and space...you are arguing for the existence of a creator. In addition to claiming that god exists, you have also failed to give any sort of coherent reason as to why he stands outside of time; simply hypothesising that the reason he does is because he's timeless, then conceding that you're ignorant as to what this means...but it's still true. Sounds like word salad to me.
No, I'm absolutely a representative of Christ. I go forth and spread the good news and represent him in all I do as outlined in scripture.
Again, I just discussed God's relationship to time and space. That's what interested me in the thread. Not here to prove anything to anyone anymore. I share my faith and given reasons for the hope in me. If folks don't like that fine....move on and give someone else a chance to get saved.
Those that desire to know God contact me privately...that's what matters.
-
I spent a lot of time and effort in a sincere and genuine debate in our last discussion only to realized that it was all a waste of time. You simply refuse to answer a simple question.
And post like this, and all this "we are the universe", "there is no such thing as time"... is more suited to be discussed inside a Volkswagon Van in a high school parking lot with a bong pipe being passed around.
I want to have a serious discussion and within the confines of modern day science and not be distracted and lead astray and once again have my time and effort wasted.
It got lost in the big thread, we left off on the idea about the care for older people. I know you are convinced otherwise, but if money would be removed from the equation - most old ppl who are taken care by, would die in the streets, like animals....that we are.
Regarding serious discussion - you underemphasize what I've just said: Seemingly very complex stuff can arise from very simple stuff. That is science, that is math and it is proven. Thus - there's no need for some superpower/god/etc... to create any of this that you see and experience. This scenario by any kind of logic and scientific explanation is a lot more likely than some super complex, super being, that appeared out of nowhere, just to create the universe, simple as that.
-
Alright. I asked you that question because I wanted to be sure of where you were coming from before I committed a response to this thread. I planned on just responding to the science aspects (I don't think that "if there was a big bang, there must have been a big banger" is a logical conclusion), but as I re-read your opening post, I'm wondering if your point is just to lay out an argument that has some semblance of logic? Something that could feasibly have happened as opposed to something you actually believe?
Because you posted this:
The rationalizations that you present in this thread obviously aren't shared by most Christians. They actually seem pretty antithetical to what most Christians profess to believe. And the simple fact is that most people who belong to organized religions don't apply any type of scientific standards to quantify their faith. So, once again, I'm a little confused. I'm not sure if you're looking for a debate on the merits of your "big banger" theory and whether or not there's a stronger, more likely argument or if you're just saying that it is possible to make a rational argument regardless of whether or not it is convincing?
There was no intention of addressing the religious aspect, Christian or otherwise. In fact, I was careful not even to mention God but only a Creator. A Creator connotes a very specific role. One that creates. A God has many meanings to many people. I wanted to avoid that.
My intention was to make a rational argument based on modern science to argue for the existence of a Creator. Both to show that it can be done and also to show that it is a valid argument.
If anyone as any issue with any one of the specific arguments I made I welcome challenge. But it is not enough to say, "it's not logical" you have to say why. Just as I did. When I say that since there was a Big Bang there had to be a "Big Banger" I am appealing to the universally accepted law of causality. It's not something I'm just making up. If you reject the law of causality then you reject logic and a well known and accepted principle. The principle of causality.
-
That's right. Einstein doesn't. That's why nothing was said about "calculations outside of time and space". Don't know why you find this nonsensical.
I don't know why being eternal negates action. Do you have any scientific backing for this claim?
You said something existing outside of space and time created space and time, you realize this statement makes absolutely no sense, as nothing can exist outside of space and time by definition. How could you even assert such a thing as if it's scientific? the inferences you are making from his theories are not fact but conjecture, you are then passing it off as if this is common knowledge.
Well, eternity would mean timeless, if there is no time, how can one act? You can't have it both ways. No scientific backing needed as eternity is not a scientific concept that is testable as we are in time. Your argument is philosophical, not scientific, not even one bit.
-
You said something existing outside of space and time created space and time, you realize this statement makes absolutely no sense, as nothing can exist outside of space and time by definition. How could you even assert such a thing as if it's scientific? the inferences you are making from his theories are not fact but conjecture, you are then passing it off as if this is common knowledge.
Well, eternity would mean timeless, if there is no time, how can one act? You can't have it both ways. No scientific backing needed as eternity is not a scientific concept that is testable as we are in time. Your argument is philosophical, not scientific, not even one bit.
Agreed.
-
there is no god
just our own in built fear of mortality
belief is the weak mans coping mechanism for death
-
There was no intention of addressing the religious aspect, Christian or otherwise. In fact, I was careful not even to mention God but only a Creator. A Creator connotes a very specific role. One that creates. A God has many meanings to many people. I wanted to avoid that.
My intention was to make a rational argument based on modern science to argue for the existence of a Creator. Both to show that it can be done and also to show that it is a valid argument.
If anyone as any issue with any one of the specific arguments I made I welcome challenge. But it is not enough to say, "it's not logical" you have to say why. Just as I did. When I say that since there was a Big Bang there had to be a "Big Banger" I am appealing to the universally accepted law of causality. It's not something I'm just making up. If you reject the law of causality then you reject logic and a well known and accepted principle. The principle of causality.
What logical or scientific argument have you made though? just saying einstein a few times doesn't mean it's true. You can't appeal to the law of causality and then break the law when it suits you? So the law of causality proves there is a god because there would be an infinite regress? god being eternal sidesteps the law (nice logic, we have a law, that is broken..... law that is broken......) and you believe this is logical or scientific? it's neither.
Things fall due to the law of gravity, "but what started the falling" a big faller they say, he doesn't fall, so he started all the other falling.
The big bang was not a creation, it was an expansion of space time from a point of infinite density and mass called the singularity, you have your facts wrong.
-
belief is the weak mans coping mechanism for death
...or in some cases for life even.
-
It's a Friday night... I'll play.
Belief in a Creator of the universe and the belief that the universe came out of nothing, i.e, first there was nothing: no space, no time and then bang, a Big Bang; is both a matter of faith.
Not quite the same
Which side you choose doesn't necessarily have to do with intelligence. There are smart people and stupid on both sides. It is your perspective, your world view, that partly determines this.
This is partially true.
Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.
Aquinas wasn't unintelligent, but even if were to accept his argument at face value, it tells us nothing about this "unmoved mover". If we look at the argument with a critical eye, then we see that it simply doesn't even stand up to rational scrutiny; it's fundametally flawed: it starts by claiming that everything requires a cause, therefore necessitating a first cause, which it goes on to argue, must be uncaused. In other words contradicts its own premise.
But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his god. Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.
So, first thing first: time is a property of the Universe. When you speak of "beginnings" you are implying temporal and causal relationships and it's unclear how such relationships can be understood outside of time. If you think that it's clear, I look forward to hearing your explanation
Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..
"Nothing begins without a cause" may be "very LOGICAL" to you and I in our everyday life, but it's certainly not "very LOGICAL" to claim that it applies to the Big Bang. If you think that isn't true, then please explain the theoretical framework under which you extend temporal causality and establish a total order of events outside of space-time.
But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.
Can you explain what you mean that "according to Einstein all time is relative to matter" just so we're both on the same page? Thanks.
So there is no time before the Big Bang.
If there is no time, there is no "before".
But say there is time before the Big Bang
Please stop using term like "before" incoherently.
So it is not just the theist that requires faith, it is also the atheist that requires faith. It takes faith to believe that everything comes from nothing.
Except believing that everything comes from nothing isn't a requirement for atheists. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of deities.
It took reason, as I had just outlined here, that everything created came from a Creator. God.
So... explain to me again why the Universe can't be uncaused but God can be?
Again, this is not meant to change anybody's mind or convert anybody though I do welcome any challenges to my SPECIFIC arguments and to my line of reasoning and the conclusions thereof. It is to dispute the notion that those who believe in God rely simply on just blind faith and wishful thinking. That we are just mindless drones believing in fairy tales that we were raised on. Also, I just touch on one aspect of the existence of a Creator. The First Cause aspect. There is more. God's fingerprints are all around us. If time and motivation is there I might present my case for that as well. The case not just for a Creator but for a God.
If you do not rely on blind faith and wishful thinking, then you should be readily able to offer a description of the attributes of your God that will allow me to distinguish him from nothing at all?
The reason these issues are so important is that what you believe, how you got here, is there any eternal accountability, determines your perspective on life and your perspective on life determines how you will ultimately behave. Not so much day to day, but that as well, but when you are morally challenged. It's one thing not to steal when you are rich and can have anything this world has to offer. It's quite another when you're not and really, really want something and can get away with just taking it.
Is your premise that morality can only come from God?
-
My intention was to makee to argue for the existence of a Creator. Both to show that it can be done and also to show that it is a valid argument.
If anyone as any issue with any one of the specific arguments I made I welcome challenge.
Ok- just wanted to get that clarified. I was initially going to respond completely differently.
Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.
Necrosis already pointed this out, but the big bang was not the creation of ALL MATTER. It was the creation of the universe. Two different things. One could make the argument that time as we are able to measure and observe it began with the big bang, but that's more an issue of special relativity. It's not the actual beginning of time.
There were a couple different directions that I thought you might have been going in. I thought this could either be a really interesting physics thread or a really boring religion thread. But in terms of pure science, your basic premise is really off. Matter existed before the big bang and so did time and events. This particular argument is not a rational argument for a creator.
-
Sad as hell.. Religion can really ruin a person's life if they don't have a strong mind to think for themselves..
absolutely
but I make this point again---you don't need religion to have "God"
I still don't get why people can't remove those two entities from themselves.......they ARE NOT mutually exclusive
-
Whoa! Huge shift from the original challenge. So do you concede that one can believe in a creator by using rational and science based reason? I already admitted to you that I am ill equip to deal with all the issues involved in believing in a Christian God. I am not a Biblical scholar. I thought I made that clear.
Sorry, I was under the impression that you were a Christian. I was not asking you to explain the bible, just your reasoning regarding subscription to Christianity, as opposed to other religious options, if indeed you were a Christian.
In relation to the use of rational and science based arguments to justify a belief in a creator, I believe the first cause argument stems from the empirical nature of the world of the senses. The world of sensual phenomena requires matter, space and time. However, in the world of noumena, these sensible prerequisites do not exist, as as such, neither does the need for a prime mover, or first cause.
Indeed, the very presence of a noumenal element to human existence, indicates to me, that we simultaneously exist outside of matter, space and time. I would go so far as to say that; consciousness has a quantum mechanism of action, and our physical selves have evolved the apparatus to receive this quantum transmission. If you are interested in this, you can research Roger Penroses' OR theory. I should add, that his theory is not widely accepted in the scientific community.
In conclusion, I do not believe the arguments you have presented are scientific, and the Aquinian rational that you are relying on is antediluvian, to say the least. Regardless of our differing opinions, I thank you for taking the time to articulate your position.
-
absolutely
but I make this point again---you don't need religion to have "God"
I still don't get why people can't remove those two entities from themselves.......they ARE NOT mutually exclusive
What is "god" without a religion? What defines "a way to believe" in any god if there's no religious doctrine? Just simple belief that "it exists"? That just doesn't make sense in that case..
-
Ah so this is why the thread stopped.....it's on MOS turf LOL!!!
-
there is no god
just our own in built fear of mortality
belief is the weak mans coping mechanism for death
You are just stating a belief on personal opinion. I present rational arguments based on modern science. If you can address any specific argument, like necrosis did (I will respond to him but it's much more involved), I am all ears. Other than that your comment is worth just as much as the guy ranting on the street corner.
-
Ah so this is why the thread stopped.....it's on MOS turf LOL!!!
Not yet. I still have a ton of posts to reply to and it's a lot of work and will take some time to get to.
I'm very glad and grateful that it has been kept civil and has stimulated thought and provocative conversation.
-
You said something existing outside of space and time created space and time, you realize this statement makes absolutely no sense, as nothing can exist outside of space and time by definition. How could you even assert such a thing as if it's scientific? the inferences you are making from his theories are not fact but conjecture, you are then passing it off as if this is common knowledge.
And here is where the mutual frustration begins. This is also an example where I believe it is not intelligence that is the deciding factor but perspective and world view.
To me it makes perfect sense. It's been established by science that the universe, time and matter, had a beginning. The law of causality states that something, which is time and matter, has to have a cause. A cause that exist outside of time and matter.
We are at an impasse.
Well, eternity would mean timeless, if there is no time, how can one act? You can't have it both ways. No scientific backing needed as eternity is not a scientific concept that is testable as we are in time. Your argument is philosophical, not scientific, not even one bit.
Again we see things from an entirely different perspective. You consider eternity to be timeless in the sense that there is no time. I consider eternity to endless time. Like numbers, it goes on forever.
BTW, I don't recall off the top of my head where I made any reference at all to eternity. Can you quote me where I have?
I know you are frustrated and even angry. I use to get that way. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. Disagreement will always be there. We just have to live it.
-
What logical or scientific argument have you made though? just saying einstein a few times doesn't mean it's true. You can't appeal to the law of causality and then break the law when it suits you? So the law of causality proves there is a god because there would be an infinite regress? god being eternal sidesteps the law (nice logic, we have a law, that is broken..... law that is broken......) and you believe this is logical or scientific? it's neither.
It gratuitously diminishes my post by saying I'm just "saying" Einstein therefore it's scientific. I reference his General Theory of Relativity and it's implications regarding matter and time.
I didn't break the law of causality. I made no attempt to prove the existence of God. To call something a Creator is very specific. To call something a God opens a Pandora's box.
The Creator isn't a side step to the law of causality because a Creator exist outside of time.
Things fall due to the law of gravity, "but what started the falling" a big faller they say, he doesn't fall, so he started all the other falling.
The big bang was not a creation, it was an expansion of space time from a point of infinite density and mass called the singularity, you have your facts wrong.
I simply disagree. The Big Bang was a creation. It could have started as a singularity just as an explosion started out as a grenade. It still begs the question who made the grenade, who started the singularity?
I don't why you think it's more rational that a singularity always existed but not a Creator. That's why these eventually come to matters of faith. Neither can be proven but one can use his knowledge and intelligence to determine what makes more sense. I appeal to the scientifically accepted belief that nothing moves without a reason.
Perhaps you can write a post showing how something came from nothing based on modern science.
Will you do it?
-
It's a Friday night... I'll play.
Not quite the same
As I mentioned before, it's not enough to disagree. You have to explain why. Why not the same?
Aquinas wasn't unintelligent, but even if were to accept his argument at face value, it tells us nothing about this "unmoved mover". If we look at the argument with a critical eye, then we see that it simply doesn't even stand up to rational scrutiny; it's fundametally flawed: it starts by claiming that everything requires a cause, therefore necessitating a first cause, which it goes on to argue, must be uncaused. In other words contradicts its own premise.
Only within the context of the beginning of the universe. The beginning of matter and time. Which has been established at being 13.7 billion years ago. The Creator exist outside of matter and time. Many people have difficulty comprehending that and I understand why. I don't. I look at time, space and matter as a creation.
The only other alternative is that something came from nothing. And that very well might be true. I can't prove otherwise. I just believe my argument for a creator is more rational. The idea that something comes from nothing to me, my perspective, my worldview, is not rational.
So, first thing first: time is a property of the Universe. When you speak of "beginnings" you are implying temporal and causal relationships and it's unclear how such relationships can be understood outside of time. If you think that it's clear, I look forward to hearing your explanation.
I just did.
"Nothing begins without a cause" may be "very LOGICAL" to you and I in our everyday life, but it's certainly not "very LOGICAL" to claim that it applies to the Big Bang. If you think that isn't true, then please explain the theoretical framework under which you extend temporal causality and establish a total order of events outside of space-time.
I don't understand your question. Please dumb it down for me.
Can you explain what you mean that "according to Einstein all time is relative to matter" just so we're both on the same page? Thanks.
Well, now you asking me to explain Einstein's theory of General Relativity. There are far more competent and inform sources that can do that. Suffice to say that there is no matter without time.
If there is no time, there is no "before".
Yes, there is. Time is a creation. It didn't always exist. It started, according to science, 13.7 billion years ago. Again, these are concepts that not everyone can understand or comprehend.
Please stop using term like "before" incoherently.
Because it is something you cannot comprehend it will not deter me in the least.
Except believing that everything comes from nothing isn't a requirement for atheists. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of deities.
Having a belief has implications. When you say being an atheist means that they don't believe in a creator it doesn't stop there. It follows that if there wasn't a creator how did the universe come to be? If it didn't just come from nothing -- just always was even though science has established a beginning -- then why are we here? Perhaps you can start a thread explaining this.
So... explain to me again why the Universe can't be uncaused but God can be?
Sure:
Belief in a Creator of the universe and the belief that the universe came out of nothing, i.e, first there was nothing: no space, no time and then bang, a Big Bang; is both a matter of faith. Which side you choose doesn't necessarily have to do with intelligence. There are smart people and stupid on both sides. It is your perspective, your world view, that partly determines this.
I find it curious that a Theist does not consider an Atheist as stupid but simply wrong. Of course an Atheist will argue that their belief is based on reason, evidence and rational argument whereas a Theist's belief is based on blind faith, emotion and up bringing.
I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.
Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.
But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his god.
Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.
And there is some confirmation of this from science, from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter came into existence around 13.7 billion years ago.
Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..
But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.
So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.
So it is not just the theist that requires faith, it is also the atheist that requires faith. It takes faith to believe that everything comes from nothing. It took reason, as I had just outlined here, that everything created came from a Creator. God.
If you do not rely on blind faith and wishful thinking, then you should be readily able to offer a description of the attributes of your God that will allow me to distinguish him from nothing at all?
There is a reason why I only made reference to a Creator. Calling something a Creator is very specific. Referring to a God opens a Pandora's box. Something I did not want to do.
Is your premise that morality can only come from God?
No.
-
Ok- just wanted to get that clarified. I was initially going to respond completely differently.
Necrosis already pointed this out, but the big bang was not the creation of ALL MATTER. It was the creation of the universe. Two different things. One could make the argument that time as we are able to measure and observe it began with the big bang, but that's more an issue of special relativity. It's not the actual beginning of time.
Well, science disagrees. All time and matter started with the Big Bang 13.7 years. Now, as string theory suggests, and as I addressed in my original post, there could have been billions of Big Bangs preceding ours. But that still begs the question, what cause these?
And actually it's, I believe, an issue of General Relativity. Special Relativity addressed time and space and why the speed of light is the "highway limit".
There were a couple different directions that I thought you might have been going in. I thought this could either be a really interesting physics thread or a really boring religion thread. But in terms of pure science, your basic premise is really off. Matter existed before the big bang and so did time and events. This particular argument is not a rational argument for a creator.
Again, science disagrees with you. The was no time or matter before the Big Bang. Otherwise science could not have establish a "beginning" of the Big Bang 13.7 billions years ago.
-
Sorry, I was under the impression that you were a Christian. I was not asking you to explain the bible, just your reasoning regarding subscription to Christianity, as opposed to other religious options, if indeed you were a Christian.
In relation to the use of rational and science based arguments to justify a belief in a creator, I believe the first cause argument stems from the empirical nature of the world of the senses. The world of sensual phenomena requires matter, space and time. However, in the world of noumena, these sensible prerequisites do not exist, as as such, neither does the need for a prime mover, or first cause.
Indeed, the very presence of a noumenal element to human existence, indicates to me, that we simultaneously exist outside of matter, space and time. I would go so far as to say that; consciousness has a quantum mechanism of action, and our physical selves have evolved the apparatus to receive this quantum transmission. If you are interested in this, you can research Roger Penroses' OR theory. I should add, that his theory is not widely accepted in the scientific community.
In conclusion, I do not believe the arguments you have presented are scientific, and the Aquinian rational that you are relying on is antediluvian, to say the least. Regardless of our differing opinions, I thank you for taking the time to articulate your position.
I am a Christian but defending that is very laborious and addressed issues I myself can't answer: (Why is there evil in the world? Why do so often we find that good people suffer and bad people prosper? Why is the world so unjust and unfair). And of course, you simply can't talk Christianity without speaking of the Bible: Where did Cain get his wife? God asked Abraham to kill his own son just to prove his faith? So God wanted to show off to the Devil that he has some hardcore true believers that weren't just in for the Heaven angle and did so at Job's expense?...
This is a lot of work and I know it won't make a whit of difference.
This post is a perfect example. Every argument I made was based of science. To say that Aquinas very obvious observation that "things move" is antediluvian is mind boggling. Look around you. Movement in not an antiquated concept. Causality is not only a very well accepted scientific principle but common sense. And then to have you say that nothing I said was scientific.
You can disagree with my conclusion but to say it was not based on science is simply disingenuous.
Now how about you? Why don't you explain how the universe came to be based on modern, mainstream science? Let's compare your reasoning and presentation with mine.
It's all fine and good to say things like:
"the very presence of a noumenal element to human existence, indicates to me, that we simultaneously exist outside of matter, space and time."
"consciousness has a quantum mechanism of action, and our physical selves have evolved the apparatus to receive this quantum transmission."
But that's just you theorizing and Kantian philosophizing. Nothing is based on any mainstream, modern, scientific principles.
-
And here is where the mutual frustration begins. This is also an example where I believe it is not intelligence that is the deciding factor but perspective and world view.
To me it makes perfect sense. It's been established by science that the universe, time and matter, had a beginning. The law of causality states that something, which is time and matter, has to have a cause. A cause that exist outside of time and matter.
We are at an impasse.
Again we see things from an entirely different perspective. You consider eternity to be timeless in the sense that there is no time. I consider eternity to endless time. Like numbers, it goes on forever.
BTW, I don't recall off the top of my head where I made any reference at all to eternity. Can you quote me where I have?
I know you are frustrated and even angry. I use to get that way. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. Disagreement will always be there. We just have to live it.
You need to brush up on your terms and science my friend, outside of space and time is eternity, a timeless state. You are using the terms incoherently here.
The law of causality certainly does not state a cause outside of time an space is the cause for everything, funny you ask for references but are simply using terms, very broad ones at that, to support your argument.
It's not a law if it requires itself to be broken in order to work, that makes no sense. The law of causality is not real, you know this right? you realize it's a philosophical argument? quantum mechanics does not behave in a cause effect manner (it's not binary action reaction) and this is where you are jumping the shark.
Science does not say all of space and time had a beginning, that would mean at one point nothing existed, if we stick to your premise, nothing could not exist for we have something. It expanded from a SINGULARITY.
-
It gratuitously diminishes my post by saying I'm just "saying" Einstein therefore it's scientific. I reference his General Theory of Relativity and it's implications regarding matter and time.
I didn't break the law of causality. I made no attempt to prove the existence of God. To call something a Creator is very specific. To call something a God opens a Pandora's box.
The Creator isn't a side step to the law of causality because a Creator exist outside of time.
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
I simply disagree. The Big Bang was a creation. It could have started as a singularity just as an explosion started out as a grenade. It still begs the question
who made the grenade, who started the singularity?
I don't why you think it's more rational that a singularity always existed but not a Creator. That's why these eventually come to matters of faith. Neither can be proven but one can use his knowledge and intelligence to determine what makes more sense. I appeal to the scientifically accepted belief that nothing
moves without a reason.
Perhaps you can write a post showing how something came from nothing based on modern science.
Will you do it?
it was not an explosion, for all we know, are you are acting as if cosmology is set, it is a cycle of big bang and big contraction, meaning no beginning needed.
Who made the grenade maker and so on.
Nothing exists outside of time and space, give me one example and we can end the argument. Just one testable attribute, one variable, it should be easy as it's scientific.
-
You need to brush up on your terms and science my friend, outside of space and time is eternity, a timeless state. You are using the terms incoherently here.
The law of causality certainly does not state a cause outside of time an space is the cause for everything, funny you ask for references but are simply using terms, very broad ones at that, to support your argument.
It's not a law if it requires itself to be broken in order to work, that makes no sense. The law of causality is not real, you know this right? you realize it's a philosophical argument? quantum mechanics does not behave in a cause effect manner (it's not binary action reaction) and this is where you are jumping the shark.
Science does not say all of space and time had a beginning, that would mean at one point nothing existed, if we stick to your premise, nothing could not exist for we have something. It expanded from a SINGULARITY.
You're just wrong. The age of the universe has been established.
We're at an impasse.
Perhaps you can start a thread on how the universe was created using modern main stream science. Where did the singularity come from?
Causality: The relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics.
Eternity: infinite time; duration without beginning or end. (Like numbers, the example I gave.)
OK, I feel I am "brushed up". BTW, I don't see where I ever used the term "eternity" or "timeless" in my original post.
-
it was not an explosion, for all we know, are you are acting as if cosmology is set, it is a cycle of big bang and big contraction, meaning no beginning needed.
Who made the grenade maker and so on.
Nothing exists outside of time and space, give me one example and we can end the argument. Just one testable attribute, one variable, it should be easy as it's scientific.
I don't think the term "Big Bang" was coined for no reason. The universe is expanding at a rapid rate. Just like a bang -- an explosion.
I already gave you an example and painstakingly presented arguments for it. The Creator.
-
You're just wrong. The age of the universe has been established.
We're at an impasse.
Perhaps you can start a thread on how the universe was created using modern main stream science. Where did the singularity come from?
Causality: The relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics.
Eternity: infinite time; duration without beginning or end. (Like numbers, the example I gave.)
OK, I feel I am "brushed up". BTW, I don't see where I ever used the term "eternity" or "timeless" in my original post.
Let's reorganize this if you wouldn't mind so we can stick to claims since you are taking the time to address me.
Where did you get that definition. Infinite is a magnitude or amount concept like the size of space, while eternity is a temporal term, time has no size, it's not infinite in that sense. Eternity would be timeless, not an infinite amount of time, it would be without time. zero. That's why when you say what was BEFORE the big bang it is non-sensical, as before requires time, two events, one pre-ceeding the other. This is the confusion others keep pointing out, if there is no time, there is no cause and effect relationship, as cause comes BEFORE effect, a temporal relationship.
The logical conclusion is that energy or matter is in fact eternal, this avoids the infinite regress, the one in which you presuppose a creator outside of this regress to satisfy it's conclusion. If the universe is eternal, no need for a cause, it just is. You want to go one step further and suggest that while something must be eternal (this is aquinas argument, something exists, of which the essence is existence) it has to be a creator, that adds more complexity then needed, it muddies the question.
Why does the singularity need a cause?
-
Let's reorganize this if you wouldn't mind so we can stick to claims since you are taking the time to address me.
Where did you get that definition. Infinite is a magnitude or amount concept like the size of space, while eternity is a temporal term, time has no size, it's not infinite in that sense. Eternity would be timeless, not an infinite amount of time, it would be without time. zero. That's why when you say what was BEFORE the big bang it is non-sensical, as before requires time, two events, one pre-ceeding the other. This is the confusion others keep pointing out, if there is no time, there is no cause and effect relationship, as cause comes BEFORE effect, a temporal relationship.
The logical conclusion is that energy or matter is in fact eternal, this avoids the infinite regress, the one in which you presuppose a creator outside of this regress to satisfy it's conclusion. If the universe is eternal, no need for a cause, it just is. You want to go one step further and suggest that while something must be eternal (this is aquinas argument, something exists, of which the essence is existence) it has to be a creator, that adds more complexity then needed, it muddies the question.
Why does the singularity need a cause?
This is my favorite part of this argument. The universe "just is" and energy and matter are eternal...uncaused.
-
Let's reorganize this if you wouldn't mind so we can stick to claims since you are taking the time to address me.
Where did you get that definition. Infinite is a magnitude or amount concept like the size of space, while eternity is a temporal term, time has no size, it's not infinite in that sense. Eternity would be timeless, not an infinite amount of time, it would be without time. zero. That's why when you say what was BEFORE the big bang it is non-sensical, as before requires time, two events, one pre-ceeding the other. This is the confusion others keep pointing out, if there is no time, there is no cause and effect relationship, as cause comes BEFORE effect, a temporal relationship.
The logical conclusion is that energy or matter is in fact eternal, this avoids the infinite regress, the one in which you presuppose a creator outside of this regress to satisfy it's conclusion. If the universe is eternal, no need for a cause, it just is. You want to go one step further and suggest that while something must be eternal (this is aquinas argument, something exists, of which the essence is existence) it has to be a creator, that adds more complexity then needed, it muddies the question.
I looked it up (Define Eternity) on google. But again, since I never mentioned the word eternity then I don't want to belabor the point.
Why does the singularity need a cause?
It doesn't. But you just have to reject the laws of causality. If you want to claim that the singularity always existed and thus the singularity is the Creator then fair play. But that would imply that the singularity existed outside of space and time which does not comport with what I conceive to be a singularity (which could be wrong). But I don't know why that is anymore rational and likely than arguing for a Creator.
-
This is my favorite part of this argument. The universe "just is" and energy and matter are eternal...uncaused.
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There
-
This is my favorite part of this argument. The universe "just is" and energy and matter are eternal...uncaused.
That's the point, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it exists.
Saying what exists always has is not a stretch, suggesting a sentient being is creating universes out of magic is.
-
I don't think the term "Big Bang" was coined for no reason. The universe is expanding at a rapid rate. Just like a bang -- an explosion.
I already gave you an example and painstakingly presented arguments for it. The Creator.
It wasn't an explosion, you are being silly, the term bang has no bearing on the math of the theory,it's a mathematical theory.
None of the arguments were pain staking, you presented Aquinas and his rebutted rehashed argument, keep making these broad sweeping arguments that have no water, like serious, the term bang wasn't coined for nothing! can you explain anything you are talking about? you just keep saying science and using terms, which you keep mixing up.
-
I looked it up (Define Eternity) on google. But again, since I never mentioned the word eternity then I don't want to belabor the point.
It doesn't. But you just have to reject the laws of causality. If you want to claim that the singularity always existed and thus the singularity is the Creator then fair play. But that would imply that the singularity existed outside of space and time which does not comport with what I conceive to be a singularity (which could be wrong). But I don't know why that is anymore rational and likely than arguing for a Creator.
The law of causality is rejected in your premise as well, why are you allowed to side step your "LAW"? you also realize that expansion was acceleration, this is not an effect as per general relativity, no cause needed, hence the expansion needs no cause.
Your insistence on something existing outside of time and space is odd, give me one example of something that exists outside of time and space, one I can verify..... it's a philosophical argument, not scientific.
-
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There
why is there anything? where did it come from? everything needs a cause right? it sure does, god did it son.
Who made god.... no one.... logic.
-
But that's just you theorizing and Kantian philosophizing. Nothing is based on any mainstream, modern, scientific principles.
I believe philosophy is all you can turn to when it comes to talking about things which are currently outside of the purview of science, which I believe a creator to be. Hence, when you said that you had scientific arguments for the existence of a creator, I was intrigued.
Regarding causation, I can only reiterate that this is an empirical fact of our sensory existence. Causality, as we experience it in our day to day lives, breaks down in the quantum realm. This is why Aquinian descriptions of the world are antediluvian. I mean not to diminish his statue as a thinker, but to say that this world view has been refuted by the natural sciences.
Regarding your Christianity, I do not believe we need to get into a lengthy talk about biblical stories to understand why you opted for subscription to this doctrine over others. You clearly chose Christianity over other religions, I am curious as to why. Did you explore other religions? If so, why did you reject them?
-
That's the point, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it exists.
Saying what exists always has is not a stretch, suggesting a sentient being is creating universes out of magic is.
It just takes us right back to my first post in this thread.
-
That's the point, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it exists.
Saying what exists always has is not a stretch, suggesting a sentient being is creating universes out of magic is.
OK, so you admit that something came from nothing. That may be so but that is outside the realm of modern, mainstream science which says very specifically that the universe had a beginning. It began 13.7 billion years ago.
Saying that a singularity, matter, always existed, means something came from nothing.
Now THAT'S magic.
-
It wasn't an explosion, you are being silly, the term bang has no bearing on the math of the theory,it's a mathematical theory.
None of the arguments were pain staking, you presented Aquinas and his rebutted rehashed argument, keep making these broad sweeping arguments that have no water, like serious, the term bang wasn't coined for nothing! can you explain anything you are talking about? you just keep saying science and using terms, which you keep mixing up.
OK, I'm not that invested in the term explosion. How about we call it the Big Expansion? Better?
It changes nothing.
What science has determined is the age of the universe and that it did have a beginning.
I explained everything I argue. Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The Law of Causality. There is nothing I can do if you don't recognize these arguments. Aquinas said that things move and they don't move without a cause. You don't believe this yet offer nothing by way of rebuttal, argument or proof. You just say so. I can quote Aquinas verbatim if I wanted to. Perhaps you can present your theory, back by modern, mainstream science, making reference to specific laws of cosmology and we can compare both logic, reason and presentation.
I explained everything I argue. Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The Law of Causality.
Your turn. Present an argument how something came from nothing base on modern, mainstream science.
-
The law of causality is rejected in your premise as well, why are you allowed to side step your "LAW"? you also realize that expansion was acceleration, this is not an effect as per general relativity, no cause needed, hence the expansion needs no cause.
Your insistence on something existing outside of time and space is odd, give me one example of something that exists outside of time and space, one I can verify..... it's a philosophical argument, not scientific.
Just as an aside, and to preserve civility. Please stop using the phrases: "You do know...." and "You do realize..." and then state something that you think is common knowledge and that everyone agrees with when obviously I do not. It's condescending. If you have a point to make, just make it. No need to imply that it's something I should accept. I'll decide that.
Again the law of causality is sound. It eventually leads to a first cause. I know you think that a first cause needs a "first, first" cause but I don't. Neither does science. I presented a clear definition that I am consistent with.
My belief in something that exist outside of time is quite clear to me. I don't know why you think it is odd. It is a logical consequence from the determination by science that the universe: time, space and matter didn't always exist. It began 13.7 billion years ago. So it had to have a cause. And to "cause" time, "create" time, you have to have a creator that exists outside of time. If not, if, say a singularity always existed, then you have to believe that something (the singularity) came from nothing. You may be right. But I think that the idea that something came from nothing is far, far more preposterous, and requires such a giant leap of faith, far more of leap than I have to take.
I already gave you an example. We are repeating ourselves. It is obvious that nothing I say you will agree with. I'm OK with that. I would like you to make your own presentation and then we can compare logic, reason, science and presentation.
-
why is there anything? where did it come from? everything needs a cause right? it sure does, god did it son.
Who made god.... no one.... logic.
You seem annoyed. No need to be. What I believe has no effect on your life. Don't take it personally. These impasses have existed for as long as man pondered these questions and issues.
-
OK, I'm not that invested in the term explosion. How about we call it the Big Expansion? Better?
It changes nothing.
What science has determined is the age of the universe and that it did have a beginning.
I explained everything I argue. Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The Law of Causality. There is nothing I can do if you don't recognize these arguments. Aquinas said that things move and they don't move without a cause. You don't believe this yet offer nothing by way of rebuttal, argument or proof. You just say so. I can quote Aquinas verbatim if I wanted to. Perhaps you can present your theory, back by modern, mainstream science, making reference to specific laws of cosmology and we can compare both logic, reason and presentation.
I explained everything I argue. Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The Law of Causality.
Your turn. Present an argument how something came from nothing base on modern, mainstream science.
In the end, all that matters to most is that God is removed from everything. Folks don't want or need God because in their own life they are god and they make the rules.
"God doesn't have a cause?!! LOL ridiculous idea! So God just is and that's it?!! AAHAHAHA!! Put down the goatherder myth book and join us in modern science there dullards LOL!! No, no silly bibliotards, according to the laws of conservation and mass both energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed only transformed. Therefore energy and matter are eternal and uncaused and the universe just is and always was."
Just swap "the universe" for God....it's that simple.
"God can't be the uncaused, personal, eternal creator, but an uncaused, eternal, impersonal universe that brought about everything via nothing, time and chance.....now that we can get behind!!"
This flies in the face of the predominance of scientific evidence that points to the universe having a beginning. Einstein himself tried to overcome the "singualarity problem", but ended up amending his work and agreeing that the universe had a beginning. The majority of Hawking's life work is about removing the "singularity problem".
So down the block is the majority of cosmology and physicists that say, "Well the universe appears to have a beginning. And that beginning came about because of quantum fluctuations which produced the flat, expanding universe out of nothing. You see, energy can spontaneously appear from no where so long as it does not last too long. It isn't created or destroyed, but it can appear out of nowhere. Particles can pop up out of a vacuum so long as they do not have too large a mass or do not last too long. One might be inclined to dismiss all this as the wild imagination of physicists, but some things have been observed that require that interpretation."
Atheists would all make fantastic lawyers because they take the law and either conform is to their needs or find loopholes within it. They would also make wonderful magicians because their use of smoke and mirrors is second to none!
And again, when it comes to loopholes and magic it comes down to one thing and one thing only.....removing God from their lives. When God is introduced that mean no more adulterous sex, no more pornography, no more drunken parties, no more recreational drug use.....no more sin and a whole bunch of accountability for actions. Can't have that!!
-
I believe philosophy is all you can turn to when it comes to talking about things which are currently outside of the purview of science, which I believe a creator to be. Hence, when you said that you had scientific arguments for the existence of a creator, I was intrigued.
Remember, I am not presenting proof or even evidence in the strictest sense. I am presenting an argument. And every argument I made made reference to a commonly accepted scientific principle.
Regarding causation, I can only reiterate that this is an empirical fact of our sensory existence. Causality, as we experience it in our day to day lives, breaks down in the quantum realm. This is why Aquinian descriptions of the world are antediluvian. I mean not to diminish his statue as a thinker, but to say that this world view has been refuted by the natural sciences.
Can you show where natural science has rejected the principle that things don't move without a cause? The law of Causality is fundamental principle of all natural science. You're giving your opinion which is fine but it is outside the realm of science.
Regarding your Christianity, I do not believe we need to get into a lengthy talk about biblical stories to understand why you opted for subscription to this doctrine over others. You clearly chose Christianity over other religions, I am curious as to why. Did you explore other religions? If so, why did you reject them?
No we don't. It is far, far more involved and requires more leaps of faith, and I am not a Biblical Scholar. And I know that no matter what I say it won't make one whit of difference. Suffice to say that I am not too keen on the Muslim faith and though I'm a big fan of Moses I believe that Christ existed, believed the historical accounts and therefore believe he was the Son of God.
People have no problem believing that Socrates existed and the accounts of his life but not about Jesus in which there is far more evidence and support.
-
In the end, all that matters to most is that God is removed from everything. Folks don't want or need God because in their own life they are god and they make the rules.
"God doesn't have a cause?!! LOL ridiculous idea! So God just is and that's it?!! AAHAHAHA!! Put down the goatherder myth book and join us in modern science there dullards LOL!! No, no silly bibliotards, according to the laws of conservation and mass both energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed only transformed. Therefore energy and matter are eternal and uncaused and the universe just is and always was."
Just swap "the universe" for God....it's that simple.
"God can't be the uncaused, personal, eternal creator, but an uncaused, eternal, impersonal universe that brought about everything via nothing, time and chance.....now that we can get behind!!"
This flies in the face of the predominance of scientific evidence that points to the universe having a beginning. Einstein himself tried to overcome the "singualarity problem", but ended up amending his work and agreeing that the universe had a beginning. The majority of Hawking's life work is about removing the "singularity problem".
So down the block is the majority of cosmology and physicists that say, "Well the universe appears to have a beginning. And that beginning came about because of quantum fluctuations which produced the flat, expanding universe out of nothing. You see, energy can spontaneously appear from no where so long as it does not last too long. It isn't created or destroyed, but it can appear out of nowhere. Particles can pop up out of a vacuum so long as they do not have too large a mass or do not last too long. One might be inclined to dismiss all this as the wild imagination of physicists, but some things have been observed that require that interpretation."
Atheists would all make fantastic lawyers because they take the law and either conform is to their needs or find loopholes within it. They would also make wonderful magicians because their use of smoke and mirrors is second to none!
And again, when it comes to loopholes and magic it comes down to one thing and one thing only.....removing God from their lives. When God is introduced that mean no more adulterous sex, no more pornography, no more drunken parties, no more recreational drug use.....no more sin and a whole bunch of accountability for actions. Can't have that!!
There has historically been an adversarial relationship between science and religion. The atheist associate themselves with science and therefore have a lock on reason and logic. The theist are the ones that believe in fantasy. They base their belief on emotion and blind faith.
Perhaps I will come at this from a different angel based on a post earlier in this thread. I will argue that as science has advanced the case for a Creator grows stronger and stronger.
But it requires some work and research as there is a lot of math involved.
-
There has historically been an adversarial relationship between science and religion. The atheist associate themselves with science and therefore have a lock on reason and logic. The theist are the ones that believe in fantasy. They base their belief on emotion and blind faith.
Are you simply stating the general nonbeliever consensus with this statement?
-
OK, so you admit that something came from nothing. That may be so but that is outside the realm of modern, mainstream science which says very specifically that the universe had a beginning. It began 13.7 billion years ago.
Saying that a singularity, matter, always existed, means something came from nothing.
Now THAT'S magic.
No I don't, I agree with aquinas, something is clearly eternal, I suggest energy is and no god is needed. Something has always existed.
Energy always existing is something not nothing, you are just regurgitating arguments without thinking now.
The age of the universe is based off of redshift and the idea that things are rapidly seperating at which point they were together, so all the matter just poofed into existence? where did it all come from if it wasn't already there? god's matter factory?
-
Just as an aside, and to preserve civility. Please stop using the phrases: "You do know...." and "You do realize..." and then state something that you think is common knowledge and that everyone agrees with when obviously I do not. It's condescending. If you have a point to make, just make it. No need to imply that it's something I should accept. I'll decide that.
Again the law of causality is sound. It eventually leads to a first cause. I know you think that a first cause needs a "first, first" cause but I don't. Neither does science. I presented a clear definition that I am consistent with.
My belief in something that exist outside of time is quite clear to me. I don't know why you think it is odd. It is a logical consequence from the determination by science that the universe: time, space and matter didn't always exist. It began 13.7 billion years ago. So it had to have a cause. And to "cause" time, "create" time, you have to have a creator that exists outside of time. If not, if, say a singularity always existed, then you have to believe that something (the singularity) came from nothing. You may be right. But I think that the idea that something came from nothing is far, far more preposterous, and requires
such a giant leap of faith, far more of leap than I have to take.
I already gave you an example. We are repeating ourselves. It is obvious that nothing I say you will agree with. I'm OK with that. I would like you to make your own presentation and then we can compare logic, reason, science and presentation.
moving at the speed of light time ceases to exist, the singularity would have atoms moving as fast as light, hence it's timeless, this is the point of the singularity, the mate breaks down, it's a singularity.
Expansion in General relativity is not an effect, meaning no cause needed. Not to mention it has been highlights over and over that the law of causality does not apply to the quantum world, how things actually work is different. The human mind is a shitty tool for the universe, UV has given us far more information then all the introspection in the world.
Nothing exists outside of time, existence is a temporal concept, you are using the terms (as others have pointed out) in a non-sensical fashion.
You fail to see the logical pitfall in your argument, everything needs a cause, as an infinite regress would form (nevermind the other options) so the only way to avoid this is a creator that exists outside of time and space, this avoids all the messy stuff like logic and fact and just gives us a neat answer!!! God did it, what caused god you asked? logic doesn't apply here (see how logical I am), god doesn't conform to logic, to cause, to time, he is the answer that requires no explanation and is infinitely more complex then the universe.
-
I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.
Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.
But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his
god.
Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it
didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.
And there is some confirmation of this from science, from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter came into existence around 13.7 billion years ago.
Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..
But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.
So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.
All time began at the big bang, asking what caused the big bang is non-sensical as is suggesting time before the point when time began. You are crushing it!!
So everything needs a cause but god, got it. makes perfect sense. Again could you give me one example of something outside of space and time? this is a scientific position after all, how can I verify your creator besides your gypsy logic?
-
You are a hypocrite of biblical proportions, and the way in which you twist and debauch science to suit your arguments is just one of the ways in which this is observable. You don’t have science on your side and this is evident in your last few posts, where you admitted to not understanding space and time, yet attempted to vacuously apply the concepts to your belief in a creator. “Loopholes and magic” are the tools of your trade that allow you to “step into the Christian worldview” and explain Noah’s ark through God’s “supernatural” ability to “transcend the bounds of naturalism”. It is you who would make a fantastic lawyer, because there are no depths to which you won’t sink in order to achieve your goals. As a proselytising fundamentalist, you stand apart from those who simply have a quiet, if admittedly questionable faith, because you seek to force your “good news” onto the ears of the credulous and desperate. Your belief in angels and demons, your condemnation of abortion and homosexuality, and your praising of asceticism has been responsible for more pain and misery than you would ever dare admit; you’d rather blame it on the innocent:
"It's the effect of our sinful choices that have brought about things like pain and fear upon the world. We're subjected to evil, disease, famine, disasters, etc...all the results of our sin. This world and it inhabitants exist in a perpetual state of decay leading to death because of sin."
Whilst you’re busy blaming our atheism on our lack of desire to give up sex, drugs and alcohol, allow me to remind you that gluttony is a sin. You’re over 300lbs and it isn’t muscle. Food is your drug and by your own admission, you are now responsible for all the death, disease and famine that is inflicted on “God’s children”. What i find most deplorable, is that you haven’t the excuse of cultural indoctrination to explain your views- you developed them as a grown man, because the fear of death crippled you.
“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”
Not only have you died a thousand times, you’ve sought to sacrifice your brothers and sisters too, in order to save yourself.
I'm a hypocrite? Uh, ok.
I twist science? Everything I posted I've provided from sources I posted in earlier threads....it's all there and you probably missed it....that's ok.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604101.msg8405888#msg8405888 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604101.msg8405888#msg8405888)
Who said I have science on my side? I see correlations between scripture and science in things, but that's about it.
I told you I understand concepts of time and space just fine and I've discussed that repeatedly in the past. Pellius is doing the majority of discussion in this thread. Again, I'm just commenting where things interest me. Do I have a PhD level knowledge of space and time? No and that's fine. I can still speak to it if need be.
I'm sinking to any depths? I'm using the words of atheists. If that's sinking then so be it.
False Christians, false believers and demonically-inspired religions have done lots of bad things. Not my fault and I don't apologize for it either because I'm not responsible. I do hate it though. People sin, lie, cheat, etc.....I don't like sin and don't willfully sin.
What I stated about sin is correct. I don't blame the innocent....they haven't done anything.
People take offense when I call out sins like pornography, adultery, drunkeness, partying, etc.... Yet, I haven't called out anyone specifically, but I also can't help if those words bring conviction for some....I hope it does. Some folks know and some folks don't know what they're doing wrong as it pertains to God's standards....some need to be told and some need to be reminded. I do so in love because if folks repent of their sin and bring it before Christ they can be cleansed and made righteous.
People of all shapes and sizes are gluttons. Being overweight does not equate to gluttony. I don't eat enormous portions of food daily. I gain weight easily - muscle and fat.
Cultural indoctrination? Those words have never been posted by me so I have no idea what you mean. You're welcome to clarify.
I have no idea what you mean with the quote and dying a thousand times. You're welcome to clarify.
-
Wow, this thread is still here. Thought it got deleted. LOL at my last post in this thread! ;D
... the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause
Can you show where natural science has rejected the principle that things don't move without a cause? The law of Causality is fundamental principle of all natural science.
Is it? When has this definition for causality been used by science? In your first post, you were sort of cagey-you just said it was logical- but when scientists discuss causality, they don't use anything more definitive than "the relationship between cause and effect".
-
Are you simply stating the general nonbeliever consensus with this statement?
Yes, generally speaking the atheist believe that they have science on their side. That the more science advances the less there is a need for a God. If I have time I will present an argument that shows the exact opposite.
-
No I don't, I agree with aquinas, something is clearly eternal, I suggest energy is and no god is needed. Something has always existed.
Energy always existing is something not nothing, you are just regurgitating arguments without thinking now.
The age of the universe is based off of redshift and the idea that things are rapidly seperating at which point they were together, so all the matter just poofed into existence? where did it all come from if it wasn't already there? god's matter factory?
For the sake of civility, please refrain from comments about when you think that I have decided not to think.
I repeat myself because I keep making the same points. And I will repeat myself again.
I cannot prove that energy has not always existed. You may be right. I will say it again, "you may be right." I have stated variations of this constantly. But I consider energy something, so, again, who created energy? So if energy always existed you have something out of nothing.
Now if you believe that energy always existed, that "a something" always existed then I cannot prove otherwise. Just as I cannot prove that between Mars and Earth there is a china teapot in an elliptical orbit. I consider your scenario just as likely.
As far as your last two questions, which you have asked repeatedly in every one of your posts, I will "regurgitate" the same answer: The Creator.
-
moving at the speed of light time ceases to exist, the singularity would have atoms moving as fast as light, hence it's timeless, this is the point of the singularity, the mate breaks down, it's a singularity.
I know. I don't how it pertains to this discussion.
Expansion in General relativity is not an effect, meaning no cause needed. Not to mention it has been highlights over and over that the law of causality does not apply to the quantum world, how things actually work is different. The human mind is a shitty tool for the universe, UV has given us far more information then all the introspection in the world.
No argument was made, or needed, in regard to the cause of General Relativity. It was used to show the relationship between time and matter. You can't have one without the other.
Nothing exists outside of time, existence is a temporal concept, you are using the terms (as others have pointed out) in a non-sensical fashion.
I disagree. A Creator exist outside of time. I already said, regurgitated, that ad infinitum. You disagree. I understand, but by saying it over and over again still isn't going to change anything
You fail to see the logical pitfall in your argument, everything needs a cause, as an infinite regress would form (nevermind the other options) so the only way to avoid this is a creator that exists outside of time and space, this avoids all the messy stuff like logic and fact and just gives us a neat answer!!! God did it, what caused god you asked? logic doesn't apply here (see how logical I am), god doesn't conform to logic, to cause, to time, he is the answer that requires no explanation and is infinitely more complex then the universe.
I think you fail to see the logical pitfalls. Something always had to exist. You think it was matter, a singularity. I think it was a Creator.
I presented my argument backed by modern, mainstream science. You have not. You just say it. You just say a singularity always existed without any backing. I used the law of causality to argue for a first cause.
-
All time began at the big bang, asking what caused the big bang is non-sensical as is suggesting time before the point when time began. You are crushing it!!
I know these are concepts that for some are very hard to comprehend. Don't take it personally.
So everything needs a cause but god, got it. makes perfect sense. Again could you give me one example of something outside of space and time? this is a scientific position after all, how can I verify your creator besides your gypsy logic?
Exactly. The Creator is the first cause. And, again, I gave you, I regurgitated, the answer to the same question you keep regurgitating. This is the last time I will do it. The example is the Creator. Please try to remember this. Don't ask for an example again. I will ignore it.
I cannot prove, verify, the existence of a Creator. I made arguments to support this belief. I've answered, regurgitated, this same answer to the same question you keep asking. I will ignore future similar questions. My limit to regurgitating is reaching a critical limit.
-
Wow, this thread is still here. Thought it got deleted. LOL at my last post in this thread! ;D
Is it? When has this definition for causality been used by science? In your first post, you were sort of cagey-you just said it was logical- but when scientists discuss causality, they don't use anything more definitive than "the relationship between cause and effect".
There is causality as I pertains to science and there is causality as it pertains to philosophy.
Of course you will always find disagreement. Not everyone believes the earth is round. I appeal to modern, mainstream, science.
-
For the sake of civility, please refrain from comments about when you think that I have decided not to think.
I repeat myself because I keep making the same points. And I will repeat myself again.
I cannot prove that energy has not always existed. You may be right. I will say it again, "you may be right." I have stated variations of this constantly. But I consider energy something, so, again, who created energy? So if energy always existed you have something out of nothing.
I think we are done here, if energy ALWAYS existed, nothing has never existed, this is aquinas argument. You are using terms incoherently. If something exists, it always has, hence, no need for something for nothing.
Now if you believe that energy always existed, that "a something" always existed then I cannot prove otherwise. Just as I cannot prove that between Mars and Earth there is a china teapot in an elliptical orbit. I consider your scenario just as likely.
As far as your last two questions, which you have asked repeated in everyone of your posts, I will "regurgitate" the same answer: The Creator.
Energy has always existed, come with me on a logical journey. Energy exists, this is objective, it can neither be created nor destroyed, the amount stays the same in the universe. Energy, namely photons move at the speed of light, they do not experience time (many people have pointed out your causality flaw, yet you persist), which means they are eternal in a sense.
That is all objective, aquinas stated that what exists is it's essence to exist, i agree, it's energy no need fora creator, as nothing was created, it is.
-
Energy has always existed, come with me on a logical journey. Energy exists, this is objective, it can neither be created nor destroyed, the amount stays the same in the universe. Energy, namely photons move at the speed of light, they do not experience time (many people have pointed out your causality flaw, yet you persist), which means they are eternal in a sense.
That is all objective, aquinas stated that what exists is it's essence to exist, i agree, it's energy no need fora creator, as nothing was created, it is.
God has always existed, come with me on a logical journey. God exists, this is objective, he can neither be created nor destroyed, he stays the same in the universe. God, namely Jesus Christ moves as he wills, he does not experience time (many people have pointed out your suppression of the truth flaw, yet you persist), which means he is eternal in truth.
That is all objective, aquinas stated that what exists is it's essence to exist, i agree, God has no need for a creator, as he is creator of all that is.
"The motivation for believing in an eternal universe was the desire to avoid invoking divine intervention to create the universe and set it going. " Stephen Hawking
-
I know these are concepts that for some are very hard to comprehend. Don't take it personally.
Exactly. The Creator is the first cause. And, again, I gave you, I regurgitated, the answer to the same question you keep regurgitating. This is the last time I will do it. The example is the Creator. Please try to remember this. Don't ask for an example again. I will ignore it.
I cannot prove, verify, the existence of a Creator. I made arguments to support this belief. I've answered, regurgitated, this same answer to the same question you keep asking. I will ignore future similar questions. My limit to regurgitating is reaching a critical limit.
You are violating your own logic, saying all needs a cause except this thing, you then call it a creator which to me implies sentience, which is quite a stretch.
You have yet to give one example of something outside of time that one can test, or outside of space for that matter. How can your argument be a objective scientific one when no examples are testable?
You can't ask what was before the big bang, it;s like asking what's north or north, I assume you are trolling at this point.
-
God has always existed, come with me on a logical journey. God exists, this is objective, he can neither be created nor destroyed, he stays the same in the universe. God, namely Jesus Christ moves as he wills, he does not experience time (many people have pointed out your suppression of the truth flaw, yet you persist), which means he is eternal in truth.
That is all objective, aquinas stated that what exists is it's essence to exist, i agree, God has no need for a creator, as he is creator of all that is.
"The motivation for believing in an eternal universe was the desire to avoid invoking divine intervention to create the universe and set it going. " Stephen Hawking
It's not, god is not objective, energy is, we use it daily, we see it in bomb explosions, I can predict and measure it, manipulate it. It's sad really, people actually have advanced humankind and you think a cherry picked quote is a mic drop.
can energy be created? no, can it be destroyed? no, does it exist? yes..... asking what caused something which cannot be caused is illogical.
-
It's not, god is not objective, energy is, we use it daily, we see it in bomb explosions, I can predict and measure it, manipulate it. It's sad really, people actually have advanced humankind and you think a cherry picked quote is a mic drop.
can energy be created? no, can it be destroyed? no, does it exist? yes..... asking what caused something which cannot be caused is illogical.
God is the most objective standard there is. I'm desperately trying to convey that to so many here so that God doesn't drop the final mic on you.
You can ignore Hawking's motivation, but it's clear his intentions are not "purely scientific". It's a very specific agenda and it's foundations are subjectivity and presupposition. Hawking's work is a large part of the foundation for modern physics and cosmology and it's grounded in eliminating God.
It's clear that this research is geared towards conforming evidence to a predetermined conclusion. This isn't universal as many folks do seek honest advancement of knowledge. God haters (I know "can't hate what doesn't exist") like Hawking are approaching this study with an absolute bias. Swat it away as nothing but the majority opinion is still that the universe had a beginning.
Can energy be created? Can energy be destroyed? No it can't. Neither by humanity or "the universe". That's a law of the natural world....it's a boundary for man and the entirety of the universe. God transcends the universe and is not bound by natural laws. God is the divine, supernatural moral and natural lawgiver. He can invent, add and take away as he wills and that includes energy. The only element of casuality that is uncaused is that which does not have a beginning and that only applies to God.
I also love context because it corrects so many errors that people bring to me. That said, here is the entirety of the context containing the quotation:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html)
-
There is causality as I pertains to science and there is causality as it pertains to philosophy.
Of course you will always find disagreement. Not everyone believes the earth is round. I appeal to modern, mainstream, science.
??? Disagreement about what? You said that the law of cause and effect is fundamental to all natural sciences. There is no law of causality in physics. It is one thing to say the relationship between cause and effect is logical (it is). Its an entirely different to say it is a law and it's fundamental to all sciences. It's not.
-
??? Disagreement about what? You said that the law of cause and effect is fundamental to all natural sciences. There is no law of causality in physics. It is one thing to say the relationship between cause and effect is logical (it is). Its an entirely different to say it is a law and it's fundamental to all sciences. It's not.
Not everyone agrees on the principles of causality as it pertains to physics. You are one of them. I gave a very straight forward definition. You don't agree with it. I'm OK with that.
I will post a link that presents more of a discussion of the role of the principles of causality as it pertains to Physics. It doesn't matter what you think of the discussion per se, it's only to give you an example that the principles of causality is part of Physics.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
-
You are violating your own logic, saying all needs a cause except this thing, you then call it a creator which to me implies sentience, which is quite a stretch.
You have yet to give one example of something outside of time that one can test, or outside of space for that matter. How can your argument be a objective scientific one when no examples are testable?
You can't ask what was before the big bang, it;s like asking what's north or north, I assume you are trolling at this point.
You keep asking this same question over and over and over again. I have answered it over and over and over again. You don't agree with my answer. I can live with that. Can you?
I thought atheist were the tolerant and rational ones?
You say I can't ask what was before the Big Bang? I say I can and I did and I do. If you think I am "trolling" then there is no need for further discussion.
-
Only within the context of the beginning of the universe. The beginning of matter and time. Which has been established at being 13.7 billion years ago. The Creator exist outside of matter and time. Many people have difficulty comprehending that and I understand why. I don't. I look at time, space and matter as a creation.
You are free to look at it any way you want - but don't expect us to just follow unless you can provide some evidence to back up your point of view. And you haven't so far.
The only other alternative is that something came from nothing. And that very well might be true. I can't prove otherwise. I just believe my argument for a creator is more rational. The idea that something comes from nothing to me, my perspective, my worldview, is not rational.
So... it's more rational to say "well, something couldn't have come from nothing, so something must have been created."? And where did this creator come from? You better not say from nothing, because that would - by your own admission - make your "perspective" and "worldview" irrational.
I don't understand your question. Please dumb it down for me.
You say that "nothing begins without a cause" is "very LOGICAL". Certainly, in our everyday life this seems to apply. You push a glass of water off the edge of the table and it falls and shatters. You go online, pay $12.99 and soon a pizza is delivered to your door. You press the brake pedal on your car and your vehicle slows down. Cause and effect.
The problem is that you try to apply this logic to the Big Bang. What caused it? What came before it? These are questions that don't make sense. Causality ("A caused B") requires temporal ordering ("A happened before B") which, in turn, requires time. And time is a property of the Universe itself.
Well, now you asking me to explain Einstein's theory of General Relativity.
Well, I used to be quite familiar with general relativity. It was required reading if I wanted to spend most of 2008 programming simulations of supermassive black holes. But you know, everyone gets rusty and you seem so well-versed, I just couldn't resist.
There are far more competent and inform sources that can do that.
Of that, there can be little doubt.
Suffice to say that there is no matter without time.
You specifically said that "according to Einstein all time is relative to matter". That wasn't accurate, and neither is this statement. Can you elaborate? What do you mean? Would you, perhaps, like me to explain general relativity to you?
Yes, there is. Time is a creation.
Objection - assumes facts not in evidence. You haven't proven that time is a creation. You've only asserted that it is, and assertions are meaningless.
It didn't always exist.
Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
It started, according to science, 13.7 billion years ago.
Well, that's not quite accurate.
Again, these are concepts that not everyone can understand or comprehend.
You must be speaking from personal experience.
Because it is something you cannot comprehend it will not deter me in the least.
Forgive me. I am a scientist and I like to use words correctly so that they make sense.
Having a belief has implications.
That's true.
When you say being an atheist means that they don't believe in a creator it doesn't stop there.
I said that " An atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of deities." I said nothing about a "creator".
It follows that if there wasn't a creator how did the universe come to be?
How did the Universes' creator come to be?
If it didn't just come from nothing -- just alays was even though science has established a beginning -- then why are we here?
Was the creator always here?
Perhaps you can start a thread explaining this.
I leave the creation of such threads to people like you, who posit the existence of a creator they can't prove by labelling the Universe a "creation."
Sure:
This answers nothing, and repasting it won't make it more convincing. I asked you to explain the major discrepancy in your theory: namely, that you claim the Universe can't be uncaused but God (or, "the creator" if you prefer) can be. If you can't, then just say so.
I'll highlight one portion. You write:
Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..
I've already explained why causality breaks down, but you refuse to understand. Still, let's move on. You suggest that the presence of what you label a creation implies a creator. Let's assume that it does. I posit, using the same arguments that you do, that the presence of a creator implies the existence of a pre-creator, who created the creator. And that, in turn, the existence of a pre-pre-creator. And a pre-pre-pre-creator. And a pre-pre-pre-pre-creator. And so on. Ad infinitum.
I claim that this infinite regress proves your statement to be bunk. If you disagree, then I challenge you to break the infinite regress and proving that a creator is causeless.
There is a reason why I only made reference to a Creator. Calling something a Creator is very specific. Referring to a God opens a Pandora's box. Something I did not want to do.
The reason why you only made a reference to a creator was because you wanted to avoid having to justify the religious underpinning of your theory. So you coated it liberally in sciencey words.
-
You are free to look at it any way you want - but don't expect us to just follow unless you can provide some evidence to back up your point of view. And you haven't so far.
You should have read my first post, or if you did, comprehend it.
"My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith, i.e. belief in something in which there is no conclusive proof.
So... it's more rational to say "well, something couldn't have come from nothing, so something must have been created."? And where did this creator come from? You better not say from nothing, because that would - by your own admission - make your "perspective" and "worldview" irrational.
Yes, it is more rational. The Creator always existed.
You say that "nothing begins without a cause" is "very LOGICAL". Certainly, in our everyday life this seems to apply. You push a glass of water off the edge of the table and it falls and shatters. You go online, pay $12.99 and soon a pizza is delivered to your door. You press the brake pedal on your car and your vehicle slows down. Cause and effect.
The problem is that you try to apply this logic to the Big Bang. What caused it? What came before it? These are questions that don't make sense. Causality ("A caused B") requires temporal ordering ("A happened before B") which, in turn, requires time. And time is a property of the Universe itself.[/b]
I repeatedly explained this. Necrosis has asked this same question over and over and over again. He doesn't accept my argument and neither will you. That's why I am a theist and you are an atheist.
Well, I used to be quite familiar with general relativity. It was required reading if I wanted to spend most of 2008 programming simulations of supermassive black holes. But you know, everyone gets rusty and you seem so well-versed, I just couldn't resist.
Of that, there can be little doubt.
You specifically said that "according to Einstein all time is relative to matter". That wasn't accurate, and neither is this statement. Can you elaborate? What do you mean? Would you, perhaps, like me to explain general relativity to you?
I already did. I know this is a long thread but you can't come into it midway, ignoring the previous discussion, and ask the same questions that has previous been addressed.
In answer to you last question. No.
Objection - assumes facts not in evidence. You haven't proven that time is a creation. You've only asserted that it is, and assertions are meaningless.
You're correct. I haven't proven anything. A point I made abundantly clear in my first post. But I will try to be patient with you.
To you assertions are meaningless. To me they are not. Most every claim in life is an assertion.
Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
Well, that's not quite accurate.
Well, some scientist claim 13.8 billion years. If you have a much different figure you should subject your findings to the scientific community. I'm just going by what modern, mainstream, science says.
You must be speaking from personal experience.
Actually, no I comprehend them fully. That's why I am making these arguments.
Forgive me. I am a scientist and I like to use words correctly so that they make sense.
What kind of scientist are you? Perhaps you can submit a post explaining life, the universe and everything.
That's true.
I said that " An atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of deities." I said nothing about a "creator".
That is a more precise definition. But I made no mention of a God.
How did the Universes' creator come to be?
Same question asked over and over and over again. Twice in this post alone. I've grown weary of repeating myself.
Was the creator always here?
Refer to the above response.
I leave the creation of such threads to people like you, who posit the existence of a creator they can't prove by labelling the Universe a "creation."
Of course, because you can't.
This answers nothing, and repasting it won't make it more convincing. I asked you to explain the major discrepancy in your theory: namely, that you claim the Universe can't be uncaused but God (or, "the creator" if you prefer) can be. If you can't, then just say so.
I can repast my post because it's a question that has already been asked constantly and it was addressed in my first post.
But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover.
I'll highlight one portion. You write:
I've already explained why causality breaks down, but you refuse to understand. Still, let's move on. You suggest that the presence of what you label a creation implies a creator. Let's assume that it does. I posit, using the same arguments that you do, that the presence of a creator implies the existence of a pre-creator, who created the creator. And that, in turn, the existence of a pre-pre-creator. And a pre-pre-pre-creator. And a pre-pre-pre-pre-creator. And so on. Ad infinitum.
I claim that this infinite regress proves your statement to be bunk. If you disagree, then I challenge you to break the infinite regress and proving that a creator is causeless.
I've already explained the principles of causality and you are unable to understand.
I've already repeatedly address this issue to this repeatedly asked question. Please refer to my previous post.
The reason why you only made a reference to a creator was because you wanted to avoid having to justify the religious underpinning of your theory. So you coated it liberally in sciencey words.
Correct.
If you have read the thread, or comprehended it, you will find that I was very specific in stating that I wanted to separate the religious aspects as it opens a Pandora's box and the thread will go in all different directions. I wasn't keen to get into a religious argument.
-
It's curious that some people can go through life and not see that there are things beyond the senses and what can be explained solely by science. Miracles, if you will. It reminds me of Hamlet:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
More and more I am coming to the belief that it's not so much that people refuse to see some of the "miracles" around them -- just the odds that there is even life here on this planet is mind boggling -- or that they don't want to see, but they simply CANNOT see. It doesn't matter how much evidence you present. They simply CANNOT see it. Even if they wanted to or wish they could. It's just hardwired in their nature. That's so sad. To think that this is all there is. That it doesn't matter if you are good or bad -- a Hitler or a Mother Teresa -- your ultimate fate is the same. No cosmic justice. Good and evil are meaningless terms.
"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.
"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it’s as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass and What Alice found there.
-
Not everyone agrees on the principles of causality as it pertains to physics. You are one of them. I gave a very straight forward definition. You don't agree with it. I'm OK with that.
I will post a link that presents more of a discussion of the role of the principles of causality as it pertains to Physics. It doesn't matter what you think of the discussion per se, it's only to give you an example that the principles of causality is part of Physics.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
Once again, you're playing fast and loose with terms when it's convenient for your argument. I never said that causality didn't play a part in physics- I said there is no LAW OF CAUSALITY in physics. Yes, the definition you posted was very straight-forward, but it's not a physics law, whether you're okay with it or not.
You said you appeal to modern, mainstream science, but that site you linked to is specifically fringe. It's not surprising you would want to minimize specific points made in that link. Not only does it outright deny the possibility of a "creator", it denies the possibility of a Big Bang, the universal speed of light and the existence of magnetism. That's not a reference for mainstream physics. It's a fringe manifesto for radical physics theories. Within mainstream physics, there is no controversy surrounding whether or not there is a law of causality. There simply isn't one. You aren't going to find references to the "law of causality" on sites that adhere to mainstream physics.
-
Once again, you're playing fast and loose with terms when it's convenient for your argument. I never said that causality didn't play a part in physics- I said there is no LAW OF CAUSALITY in physics. Yes, the definition you posted was very straight-forward, but it's not a physics law, whether you're okay with it or not.
You said you appeal to modern, mainstream science, but that site you linked to is specifically fringe. It's not surprising you would want to minimize specific points made in that link. Not only does it outright deny the possibility of a "creator", it denies the possibility of a Big Bang, the universal speed of light and the existence of magnetism. That's not a reference for mainstream physics. It's a fringe manifesto for radical physics theories. Within mainstream physics, there is no controversy surrounding whether or not there is a law of causality. There simply isn't one. You aren't going to find references to the "law of causality" on sites that adhere to mainstream physics.
OK, principles of causality. Better?
I chose that site because it was a bit fringe.
Google "causality in Physics" and see if you get any entries.
-
I chose that site because it was a bit fringe.
Really? It wasn't because that was the only site you could find that stated that particular "law" in the context of physics? I don't quite get the logic of choosing a fringe site to illustrate a point that I had already said was suspect. Were there any mainstream sites you chose not to link that used that definition?
OK, principles of causality. Better?
Google "causality in Physics" and see if you get any entries.
Once again, I never denied that causality plays a part in physics. What I specifically said is that there is no LAW of causality in physics. Yes, a relationship between causes and effects is acknowledged in physics- which is what I have already said and what you will get if you google "causality in physics". However, there is no physics law or principle stating that nothing begins without a cause. You have said at least three times that that is a fundamental principle of all natural sciences. In the context of this debate, this is not an arbitrary point. Your argument is: "There was a beginning to time and space" + "The Law of Causality says nothing begins without a cause". Half of that argument is not scientifically accurate.
-
Really? It wasn't because that was the only site you could find that stated that particular "law" in the context of physics? I don't quite get the logic of choosing a fringe site to illustrate a point that I had already said was suspect. Were there any mainstream sites you chose not to link that used that definition?
Once again, I never denied that causality plays a part in physics. What I specifically said is that there is no LAW of causality in physics. Yes, a relationship between causes and effects is acknowledged in physics- which is what I have already said and what you will get if you google "causality in physics". However, there is no physics law or principle stating that nothing begins without a cause. You have said at least three times that that is a fundamental principle of all natural sciences. In the context of this debate, this is not an arbitrary point. Your argument is: "There was a beginning to time and space" + "The Law of Causality says nothing begins without a cause". Half of that argument is not scientifically accurate.
True. If I said "Law" then I misspoke. A relationship with physics, being part of physics, is more precise. When I sit here trying to respond to every question posed my language is more apt to be less than precise. In my original post, which I wrote at more leisure and paid more attention to my words and purposely did not mention physics, I said:
Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger".
But thank you for clarifying the issue and an insistence on more precise language in a topic that is subject to a variety of interpretations. You are quite right on this point. If I could do so easily I would replace every mention of the word "law" as it pertains to physics and science with "principles" or "premise". I willingly concede this point to you and should have done so earlier if I was paying closer attention to your posts and the point you were trying to make.
-
True. If I said "Law" then I misspoke. A relationship with physics, being part of physics, is more precise. When I sit here trying to respond to every question posed my language is more apt to be less than precise. In my original post, which I wrote at more leisure and paid more attention to my words and purposely did not mention physics, I said:
But thank you for clarifying the issue and an insistence on more precise language in a topic that is subject to a variety of interpretations.
I'll say it again: you are trying to apply the principle of casualty without considering the relevant context. You are, in essence, arguing that since we observe causal relationships in our every day life then causal relationships are universal.
That's simply not the case. Forget applying causality to the entire Universe to argue for a creator. You can't even apply causality to quantum events!
Your original grandiose post has been reduced to using scientific terminology in a decidedly unscientific way to argue that the Universe requires a creator because everything needs a cause... or almost everything because you feel like making the creator special.
If you believe that the Universe was created, good for you. But don't try to convince us that (a) this is a scientifically supported position or (b) that faith and rationality are two sides of the same coin.
-
I'll say it again: you are trying to apply the principle of casualty without considering the relevant context. You are, in essence, arguing that since we observe causal relationships in our every day life then causal relationships are universal.
That's simply not the case. Forget applying causality to the entire Universe to argue for a creator. You can't even apply causality to quantum events!
Your original grandiose post has been reduced to using scientific terminology in a decidedly unscientific way to argue that the Universe requires a creator because everything needs a cause... or almost everything because you feel like making the creator special.
If you believe that the Universe was created, good for you. But don't try to convince us that (a) this is a scientifically supported position or (b) that faith and rationality are two sides of the same coin.
My friend, I've shown you the courtesy of answering or addressing each one of your questions and comments, as I have with everybody. But that courtesy is never returned. Please answer my ONE question to you: what kind of scientist are you?
And if this thread interest you so much that you take the time to ask some very challenging questions you should at least read the entire thread because I can't keep addressing the same point over and over again. I made my intention crystal clear in my first post. It's been stated several times in this thread and stated three times in my first post.
My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith, i.e. belief in something in which there is no conclusive proof.
And what I present, to be precise, is not so much evidence but an argument for a Creator. An argument based of reason and science and not just emotion and wishful thinking.
Again, this is not meant to change anybody's mind or convert anybody though I do welcome any challenges to my SPECIFIC arguments and to my line of reasoning and the conclusions thereof.
-
My friend, I've shown you the courtesy of answering or addressing each one of your questions and comments, as I have with everybody. But that courtesy is never returned. Please answer my ONE question to you: what kind of scientist are you?
And if this thread interest you so much that you take the time to ask some very challenging questions you should at least read the entire thread because I can't keep addressing the same point over and over again. I made my intention crystal clear in my first post. It's been stated several times in this thread and stated three times in my first post.
But your whole argument falls apart when your central tenet, everything requires a cause or has a cause, isn't even objectively true in physics.
Your perception is a terrible tool, our perception is terrible, it's not real in a fundamental sense.
-
My friend, I've shown you the courtesy of answering or addressing each one of your questions and comments, as I have with everybody. But that courtesy is never returned. Please answer my ONE question to you: what kind of scientist are you?
And if this thread interest you so much that you take the time to ask some very challenging questions you should at least read the entire thread because I can't keep addressing the same point over and over again. I made my intention crystal clear in my first post. It's been stated several times in this thread and stated three times in my first post.
To begin this post I want to start by saying that I like and respect avxo very much. He and I have talked several times in the past. I believe him to be a good guy so know that up front.
First, his timing in this type of thread is EXCELLENT and he'll always arrive when you're the most fatigued in the thread. Today, if I happen to be in a 3-5 day back and forth religion thread that's heated with several folks I know there's a good chance that avxo will appear at the end of day 5 after I've done several hours of posting and most have quit. He seems like the atheist's last, best line of defense when all other atheists have tried everything they know to post and haven't "won the argument". To me, it feels like they shoot avxo's "bat symbol" in the sky or have one of the usuals in charge of sending emergency PMs to avxo to get him to engage in the thread LOL! Smart play cause he's a smart guy!!
Next, when he does appear it will be out of nowhere and including his patented "line by line" post dissection. He has an analytical mind, but good sense of humor. Also, it's not that the questions are bad, it's just comes when you're the most tired...when the thread appears to be dying and others have clearly abandoned ship but the topic is still a hot button. It can wear you out so be prepared because the hardest effort comes now.
Next, it's easy to ask 60 brief questions....it's another thing to provide answers....that's 100 times the effort. I can do the question thing myself all day long and not grow tired. My suggestion is to keep your answers as honest and as succinct as possible because every word from "the" to "God" will be called into question. Further, know that many questions will repeat via restatement (and many things will be funny comments). Answer the primary question once and let the others go. I've built an arsenal of responses to recurring questions so I can do this back and forth more quickly today. I have an offline avxo file with previous discussions/replies I draw from now (I have them for a few other posters as well...they ask the same questions over and over)....saves time when you can just copy and paste what you've already written.
Finally, understand up front that he is not your enemy, but any definition you provide for words or topics will never be sufficient or correct or cogent. RARELY will he agree with a theistic worldview no matter how thoroughly you can support it or talk to it. All definitions, all evidence, all justification, all experiences, etc....RARELY matter or make a dent. That's ok, don't let it phase you.
Again, not hating on avxo. Good guy, good questions, smart man, excellent timing, excellent debater, etc......just a completely different worldview. I've just been through it so many times it almost feels rehearsed now LOL. Plus, he's provided thoughtful, challenging questions that most don't so I thought I'd provide my feedback. Hey, for what it's worth.
-
My friend, I've shown you the courtesy of answering or addressing each one of your questions and comments, as I have with everybody. But that courtesy is never returned. Please answer my ONE question to you: what kind of scientist are you?
Well, I'm the sciencey kind of scientist. I have a B.Sc. in Math (with a minor in Physics - it would have been a dual degree, were it not for a paperwork screwup on my part), an M.Sc. in math and an M.Sc. in Computer Science. My research now is mostly on computational biology and biochemistry and my Ph.D. (which I completed recently) was about improving protein folding simulations. Beyond academia, I'm no stranger to physics: as I previously hinted, I was part of a team that programmed a model simulating supermassive black holes.
And if this thread interest you so much that you take the time to ask some very challenging questions you should at least read the entire thread because I can't keep addressing the same point over and over again. I made my intention crystal clear in my first post. It's been stated several times in this thread and stated three times in my first post.
You started a thread that aimed to show that a rational argument could be made for a creator. You failed for a simple reason: you argue that everything requires a creator, and therefore that it is rational for the Universe to require one as well, but then you turn around an make an exception to the core premise of your argument. You claim that this is rational. I claim that it's bullshit.
-
To begin this post I want to start by saying that I like and respect avxo very much. He and I have talked several times in the past. I believe him to be a good guy so know that up front.
First, his timing in this type of thread is EXCELLENT and he'll always arrive when you're the most fatigued in the thread. Today, if I happen to be in a 3-5 day back and forth religion thread that's heated with several folks I know there's a good chance that avxo will appear at the end of day 5 after I've done several hours of posting and most have quit. He seems like the atheist's last, best line of defense when all other atheists have tried everything they know to post and haven't "won the argument". To me, it feels like they shoot avxo's "bat symbol" in the sky or have one of the usuals in charge of sending emergency PMs to avxo to get him to engage in the thread LOL! Smart play cause he's a smart guy!!
Next, when he does appear it will be out of nowhere and including his patented "line by line" post dissection. He has an analytical mind, but good sense of humor. Also, it's not that the questions are bad, it's just comes when you're the most tired...when the thread appears to be dying and others have clearly abandoned ship but the topic is still a hot button. It can wear you out so be prepared because the hardest effort comes now.
Next, it's easy to ask 60 brief questions....it's another thing to provide answers....that's 100 times the effort. I can do the question thing myself all day long and not grow tired. My suggestion is to keep your answers as honest and as succinct as possible because every word from "the" to "God" will be called into question. Further, know that many questions will repeat via restatement (and many things will be funny comments). Answer the primary question once and let the others go. I've built an arsenal of responses to recurring questions so I can do this back and forth more quickly today. I have an offline avxo file with previous discussions/replies I draw from now (I have them for a few other posters as well...they ask the same questions over and over)....saves time when you can just copy and paste what you've already written.
Finally, understand up front that he is not your enemy, but any definition you provide for words or topics will never be sufficient or correct or cogent. RARELY will he agree with a theistic worldview no matter how thoroughly you can support it or talk to it. All definitions, all evidence, all justification, all experiences, etc....RARELY matter or make a dent. That's ok, don't let it phase you.
Again, not hating on avxo. Good guy, good questions, smart man, excellent timing, excellent debater, etc......just a completely different worldview. I've just been through it so many times it almost feels rehearsed now LOL. Plus, he's provided thoughtful, challenging questions that most don't so I thought I'd provide my feedback. Hey, for what it's worth.
Thanks for the kind words. Believe it or not, I don't time my posts, nor is it my goal to wear down someone by endless arguing. The reality is that these days the amount of time I have to post on here is dictated solely by my workload - you wouldn't believe me if I told you just how much work is needed to teach three classes, and advise a student pursuing an M.Sc. and do your own research on top. I barely have time to lift...
You say that "All definitions, all evidence, all justification, all experiences, etc....RARELY matter or make a dent." That's simply not true. The problem is that I have very specific requirements for a definition. If we're arguing about apples and I ask you to define what an apple is, then your answer should be such that it allows me to distinguish an apple from, say, a tomato. Otherwise, it's meaningless. I'm strict about definitions because that's what everything else is based on. Without a common definition, we have no common basis to debate.
One thing is true: I enjoy debating very much. Not only does debating helps me keep their mind sharp, but I also learn a lot from it, even if, when it's all said and done, my opinion hasn't changed. I'm a firm believe that it's good to be exposed to opposing viewpoints and to put your positions to the test and challenge the positions of others.
-
Thanks for the kind words. Believe it or not, I don't time my posts, nor is it my goal to wear down someone by endless arguing. The reality is that these days the amount of time I have to post on here is dictated solely by my workload - you wouldn't believe me if I told you just how much work is needed to teach three classes, and advise a student pursuing an M.Sc. and do your own research on top. I barely have time to lift...
You say that "All definitions, all evidence, all justification, all experiences, etc....RARELY matter or make a dent." That's simply not true. The problem is that I have very specific requirements for a definition. If we're arguing about apples and I ask you to define what an apple is, then your answer should be such that it allows me to distinguish an apple from, say, a tomato. Otherwise, it's meaningless. I'm strict about definitions because that's what everything else is based on. Without a common definition, we have no common basis to debate.
One thing is true: I enjoy debating very much. Not only does debating helps me keep their mind sharp, but I also learn a lot from it, even if, when it's all said and done, my opinion hasn't changed. I'm a firm believe that it's good to be exposed to opposing viewpoints and to put your positions to the test and challenge the positions of others.
I agree I don't think you time anything....you're timing just happens to be very, very good LOL!! I've seen others folks post with a sense of relief when you enter the thread. ;)
I like when you post because you aren't often on the attack....your comments are concise and direct/cutting (in a good way). The discussion is good and challenging. Most folks ask stuff that I can answer in my sleep. Not always so with you. You bring freshness and that helps me shape my arguments and think more critically..
I agree that definitions are very important....foundationa l in most arguments. Our worldviews are different so finding commonality is tough.
Nothing I wrote was meant to be insulting either....just helping someone else engage because you are a fiesty debater LOL!!
All the best my friend!!
MOS
-
But thank you for clarifying the issue and an insistence on more precise language in a topic that is subject to a variety of interpretations. You are quite right on this point. If I could do so easily I would replace every mention of the word "law" as it pertains to physics and science with "principles" or "premise". I willingly concede this point to you and should have done so earlier if I was paying closer attention to your posts and the point you were trying to make.
This was not me being strict about word usage. I was not making a petty point about semantics, I was trying to clarify one of the two main points of your position. I do not care if a word is messpelled or misapplied when the meaning is clear, but the way you misapplied those words makes a fundamental change to your argument.
So, now we're in agreement that there is no PHYSICAL LAW that dictates every ostensible effect must have a preceding cause. You are proposing that you believe it's logical to assume that all effects have causes. You also propose, based on that assumption and the fact that there was a beginning of time and space, that it's logical to conclude there must be some sort of creator that initiated the first cause.
So, I guess now the obvious questions for me are "Is it logical to assume that all effects must have causes?" and "What constitutes a cause in regards to the Big Bang? "
We're in agreement that measurable time had a beginning and is dependent on matter. You seem to disagree with other posters who've stated that it is logical to assume energy is infinite.
Related to that line of thinking, let me pose these questions to you:
1.Do you believe there is a difference between matter and energy?
2. Theoretically, do you believe it's possible to destroy all matter in the universe? Do you believe that this would mean destroying all energy, too? (Most physicists believe that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It just changes forms.)
3.If you believe that it is possible to destroy all matter without destroying all energy, what effect do you think that would have on time? Do you believe time's relationship to matter is identical to its relationship to energy?
-
But your whole argument falls apart when your central tenet, everything requires a cause or has a cause, isn't even objectively true in physics.
Your perception is a terrible tool, our perception is terrible, it's not real in a fundamental sense.
I disagree. And it's far more logical than matter has always existed. Again, science has show that the universe had a beginning.
-
To begin this post I want to start by saying that I like and respect avxo very much. He and I have talked several times in the past. I believe him to be a good guy so know that up front.
First, his timing in this type of thread is EXCELLENT and he'll always arrive when you're the most fatigued in the thread. Today, if I happen to be in a 3-5 day back and forth religion thread that's heated with several folks I know there's a good chance that avxo will appear at the end of day 5 after I've done several hours of posting and most have quit. He seems like the atheist's last, best line of defense when all other atheists have tried everything they know to post and haven't "won the argument". To me, it feels like they shoot avxo's "bat symbol" in the sky or have one of the usuals in charge of sending emergency PMs to avxo to get him to engage in the thread LOL! Smart play cause he's a smart guy!!
Next, when he does appear it will be out of nowhere and including his patented "line by line" post dissection. He has an analytical mind, but good sense of humor. Also, it's not that the questions are bad, it's just comes when you're the most tired...when the thread appears to be dying and others have clearly abandoned ship but the topic is still a hot button. It can wear you out so be prepared because the hardest effort comes now.
Next, it's easy to ask 60 brief questions....it's another thing to provide answers....that's 100 times the effort. I can do the question thing myself all day long and not grow tired. My suggestion is to keep your answers as honest and as succinct as possible because every word from "the" to "God" will be called into question. Further, know that many questions will repeat via restatement (and many things will be funny comments). Answer the primary question once and let the others go. I've built an arsenal of responses to recurring questions so I can do this back and forth more quickly today. I have an offline avxo file with previous discussions/replies I draw from now (I have them for a few other posters as well...they ask the same questions over and over)....saves time when you can just copy and paste what you've already written.
Finally, understand up front that he is not your enemy, but any definition you provide for words or topics will never be sufficient or correct or cogent. RARELY will he agree with a theistic worldview no matter how thoroughly you can support it or talk to it. All definitions, all evidence, all justification, all experiences, etc....RARELY matter or make a dent. That's ok, don't let it phase you.
Again, not hating on avxo. Good guy, good questions, smart man, excellent timing, excellent debater, etc......just a completely different worldview. I've just been through it so many times it almost feels rehearsed now LOL. Plus, he's provided thoughtful, challenging questions that most don't so I thought I'd provide my feedback. Hey, for what it's worth.
Since I've agonized over these issues (as I mentioned in my first post) since the second grade when my nun told me God is always watching and that there is a Heaven and Hell. And I've been on both sides, having been an almost militant Agnostic for almost twenty years (I was far more adamant convincing others of my Agnosticism than I am of now convincing others of my Christianity. I still find this to be the case with other Atheist. Note in these type of threads there will be few "pro God" post and those that do rarely get into any type of in depth discussions. It's the Atheist that go on the offense. It proves my belief that an Atheist is far more bothered by a Theist than vice versa).
So with a life time dealing with these issues, and still dealing with them, there is nothing axxo has said that I haven't heard before.
LOL @ Batman! From the look of things, he might want to send up the "Robin symbol".
-
Well, I'm the sciencey kind of scientist. I have a B.Sc. in Math (with a minor in Physics - it would have been a dual degree, were it not for a paperwork screwup on my part), an M.Sc. in math and an M.Sc. in Computer Science. My research now is mostly on computational biology and biochemistry and my Ph.D. (which I completed recently) was about improving protein folding simulations. Beyond academia, I'm no stranger to physics: as I previously hinted, I was part of a team that programmed a model simulating supermassive black holes.
You started a thread that aimed to show that a rational argument could be made for a creator. You failed for a simple reason: you argue that everything requires a creator, and therefore that it is rational for the Universe to require one as well, but then you turn around an make an exception to the core premise of your argument. You claim that this is rational. I claim that it's bullshit.
Again, please read my first post, or at least try to comprehend it. It's not a complicated issue. We just disagree. I can live with that. How about you?
I already address the issue of a First Cause.l
Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.
Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.
-
I disagree.
Congratulations.
And it's far more logical than matter has always existed.
You probably think it's more logical to think that particles don't appear out of nothing, and yet we have particle-antiparticle emerging from quantum vacuum fluctuations all the time.
You probably think it's more logical to say that a particle at a given energy level either can or can't surmount a barrier, yet quantum tunneling is very real.
Again, science has show that the universe had a beginning.
I've pointed out your incorrect use of terminology and you dismiss that as a non-issue. I've pointed out your incorrect understanding of principles and concepts that are he core of your argument and you continue using the principles and concepts incorrectly.
Your argument is flawed and the only people you'll convince with it are those who either agree with your conclusion to begin with or those who are, shall we say challenged.
-
Again, please read my first post, or at least try to comprehend it. It's not a complicated issue. We just disagree. I can live with that. How about you?
I already address the issue of a First Cause.l
Look. You can believe whatever you want and as long as you don't try to force me to believe what you believe or to live according to your beliefs, then I don't particularly care what it is that you believe in.
You ask whether I can live with disagreement. Of course. Nothing hinges on this discussion for me, nor am I particularly keen to convince you of anything. If belief in a creator - whether it's God or something else - helps you, then you go believing and more power to you.
But if you're going to argue that your beliefs are rational and based on science then don't be surprised if people call out irrationality or misuse of theories and scientific terms.
As for your first cause argument, you aren't the first to take that approach. The argument is flawed for all the reasons pointed in this thread and many more. And while I am sure it makes sense to you, I'm sorry to have to tell you that the Emperor has no clothes.
-
This was not me being strict about word usage. I was not making a petty point about semantics, I was trying to clarify one of the two main points of your position. I do not care if a word is messpelled or misapplied when the meaning is clear, but the way you misapplied those words makes a fundamental change to your argument.
Yes, it was not petty and a very important distinction in which I was too casual about.
So, now we're in agreement that there is no PHYSICAL LAW that dictates every ostensible effect must have a preceding cause. You are proposing that you believe it's logical to assume that all effects have causes. You also propose, based on that assumption and the fact that there was a beginning of time and space, that it's logical to conclude there must be some sort of creator that initiated the first cause.
So, I guess now the obvious questions for me are "Is it logical to assume that all effects must have causes?" and "What constitutes a cause in regards to the Big Bang? "
Yes, I do believe it is more logical to propose a first cause. Otherwise the causal chain goes backwards forever. Now I cannot disprove this, but I find this scenario takes a far greater leap in faith. That was one of the purposes of my argument. That a Theist also requires faith and their position isn't inherently more valid than mine.
I use the term "cause" regarding the Big Bang in the sense it stemmed from something else. Now as far as the "Why?" Well, my friend, that is a question I want answered as well. In a world where the bad far outweighs the good and is full of needless suffering I agonize almost daily what was the point. That's why I often make the point that a far more interesting question to me is not that there is a God that created the universe but rather, is God good?
We're in agreement that measurable time had a beginning and is dependent on matter. You seem to disagree with other posters who've stated that it is logical to assume energy is infinite.
Related to that line of thinking, let me pose these questions to you:
1.Do you believe there is a difference between matter and energy?
Without matter there is no energy and vice versa.
2. Theoretically, do you believe it's possible to destroy all matter in the universe? Do you believe that this would mean destroying all energy, too? (Most physicists believe that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It just changes forms.)
No. But I'm not sure what you mean by theoretically. When it comes to this point anything is possible.
If you believe that it is possible to destroy all matter without destroying all energy, what effect do you think that would have on time? Do you believe time's relationship to matter is identical to its relationship to energy?
Answer above.
-
Congratulations.
You probably think it's more logical to think that particles don't appear out of nothing, and yet we have particle-antiparticle emerging from quantum vacuum fluctuations all the time.
You probably think it's more logical to say that a particle at a given energy level either can or can't surmount a barrier, yet quantum tunneling is very real.
Actually I didn't "probably think". I never thought about that at all. I don't understand it. I am not a scientist.
Nice display of your expertise in particle physics.
I've pointed out your incorrect use of terminology and you dismiss that as a non-issue. I've pointed out your incorrect understanding of principles and concepts that are he core of your argument and you continue using the principles and concepts incorrectly.
Don't put words in my mouth. That I will not tolerate. I never said it was a non issue.
I've pointed your incorrect understanding of principles and concepts, primarily that of causality, and you continue using the principles and concepts incorrectly.
Your argument is flawed and the only people you'll convince with it are those who either agree with your conclusion to begin with or those who are, shall we say challenged.
And those that agree with you have also already made up their mind.
But I will not insult their intelligence as you have done to believers. I already said in my first post that there are intelligent people on both sides the fact that you will insult them simply because they don't agree with you is quite a reflection on your character. You seem more emotionally invested than you are willing to admit.
Your standing and credibility as a scientist, that presumably prides themselves on objectivity, has been diminished by that post.
-
Look. You can believe whatever you want and as long as you don't try to force me to believe what you believe or to live according to your beliefs, then I don't particularly care what it is that you believe in.
Why do you keep saying this? I've answered it numerous times. I answer this question to you personally twice. Just a few posts ago. I gave you three quotes in my first post addressing this very issue.
Now I want you to answer this question before we can continue to have a dialogue. I need to know if I am just wasting my time.
Why do you make any reference or implications that I am trying to convince, let alone force, anybody to believe anything when I specifically stated three times in my first post that that is not my attention? My post was in response to a challenge by 10pints that a theist can appeal to logic and science, whether you agree or not was beside the point, and that it's not just emotionally based and wishful thinking. I was very, very, clear on that point but yet you ignore it.
Why?
You have put words in my mouth. You have insulted the intelligence of those that don't agree with you. And you keep accusing me of something that I have made a specific effort to dispel.
More and more you are coming across as less of a scientist and more as a disingenuous person emotionally invested in a specific world view.
You ask whether I can live with disagreement. Of course. Nothing hinges on this discussion for me, nor am I particularly keen to convince you of anything. If belief in a creator - whether it's God or something else - helps you, then you go believing and more power to you.
But if you're going to argue that your beliefs are rational and based on science then don't be surprised if people call out irrationality or misuse of theories and scientific terms.
As for your first cause argument, you aren't the first to take that approach. The argument is flawed for all the reasons pointed in this thread and many more. And while I am sure it makes sense to you, I'm sorry to have to tell you that the Emperor has no clothes.
-
And those that agree with you have also already made up their mind.
No doubt.
But I will not insult their intelligence as you have done to believers. I already said in my first post that there are intelligent people on both sides the fact that you will insult them simply because they don't agree with you is quite a reflection on your character. You seem more emotionally invested than you are willing to admit.
It's perfectly fine, as far as I'm concerned, for a believer to say: "Through personal revelation, I have received evidence that convinces me that <insert name of deity> exists." And there's nothing that I can use to argue against that personal revelation, because it's supernatural in nature and so, by definition, outside the scope of nature, science and logic.
I don't insult the intelligence of people who believe: I challenge the premises of those who believe that they can prove anything about a supernatural deity within the framework of nature.
Why do you keep saying this? I've answered it numerous times. I answer this question to you personally twice. Just a few posts ago. I gave you three quotes in my first post addressing this very issue.
But the quotes you gave me just reiterate the same thing - the premise that I reject. Repeating it doesn't help.
Now I want you to answer this question before we can continue to have a dialogue. I need to know if I am just wasting my time.
Why do you make any reference or implications that I am trying to convince, let alone force, anybody to believe anything when I specifically stated three times in my first post that that is not my attention? My post was in response to a challenge by 10pints that a theist can appeal to logic and science, whether you agree or not was beside the point, and that it's not just emotionally based and wishful thinking. I was very, very, clear on that point but yet you ignore it.
Why?
You have put words in my mouth. You have insulted the intelligence of those that don't agree with you. And you keep accusing me of something that I have made a specific effort to dispel.
I take you at your word that you don't seek to convince anyone. The part of my post that you're quoting isn't meant to be specifically against you. It's meant as a general statement of my principles. You asked if I can live with disagreement. Of course I can and I was making the point that I have no issue with anyone who doesn't seek to impose himself on me. I wasn't suggesting you were trying to force me to believe anything or to live in accordance to your beliefs. If that's how it came across, then I apologize.
More and more you are coming across as less of a scientist and more as a disingenuous person emotionally invested in a specific world view.
I'm mostly invested in exchange-traded funds that target a 2035-2040 retirement...
-
I challenge the premises of those who believe that they can prove anything about a supernatural deity within the framework of nature.
Once again and again and again and again, I specifically stated I can't prove anything.
But the quotes you gave me just reiterate the same thing - the premise that I reject. Repeating it doesn't help.
When I say I can't prove anything and then you continue to accuse me of not proving anything, when I can't prove a first cause anymore than I can prove an infinite backward casual regression and yet you still ask me to prove it it is you that are constantly repeating yourself.
I am beginning to suspect that I am wasting my time and we will just go back and forth repeating ourselves. I believe that eventually there is a first cause. You don't. That implies an infinite regression. As you say, pre-creator, a pre-pre-creator, a pre-pre-pre creator.... I believe that is a much greater leap in faith.
This is what it ultimately comes down to. It has little to do with intelligence but has more to do with one's world view and perspective. What makes more sense?
I wasn't suggesting you were trying to force me to believe anything or to live in accordance to your beliefs. If that's how it came across, then I apologize.
This isn't about just me personally. It was to insult the intelligence
of those that don't agree with you. William F Buckley was a Christian, so was Scalia, so was virtually every President this country has ever had. These people were not "challenged". It was a very immature, nasty and unnecessary thing to say as your arguments should stand based on it's on merits and not because people are just too dumb to understand them.
This was a very unfair and even dishonorable thing to say and does not reflect well on your character
-
Actually I didn't "probably think". I never thought about that at all. I don't understand it. I am not a scientist.
Nice display of your expertise in particle physics.
Don't put words in my mouth. That I will not tolerate. I never said it was a non issue.
I've pointed your incorrect understanding of principles and concepts, primarily that of causality, and you continue using the principles and concepts incorrectly.
And those that agree with you have also already made up their mind.
But I will not insult their intelligence as you have done to believers. I already said in my first post that there are intelligent people on both sides the fact that
you will insult them simply because they don't agree with you is quite a reflection on your character. You seem more emotionally invested than you are willing to admit.
Your standing and credibility as a scientist, that presumably prides themselves on objectivity, has been diminished by that post.
I repeatedly many pages ago said the same thing as above, you are clearly not interested in open debate. You were shown that causality is not a core concept of fundamental reality, if string theory or one of it's iterations are correct, even less so. Your argument fails do to having faulty underpinnings.
Multiple people and avxo previously mentioned that virtual particles pop into existence for no reason, you think the world works like a computer, binary logic, it's quantum, logic is incorrect, reality is actually counterintuitive.
You continue to mix up terms, before the big bang is like asking what's north or north, yet you persist. Not to mention even your logic is fundamentally flawed as the very premise you look to establish, all needs a cause, is itself broken to satisfy it's conclusion...absurd.
You appeal to Aquinas intelligence, the thing with intelligence is it allows one to move past names and terms and into the nitty gritty, the argument is all anyone should care about, not who it came from... His argument is flawed and has been debunked for centuries. You also misunderstand Aquinas, he is asserting that something is eternal, for the very reason that we have something.. existence. That is whatever exists has always existed as nothing could never have been as something cannot come from nothing. Now fast forward and science has answered the question much better, shit comes from "nothing", logic fails us. Just like our eyes suck compared to hubble, science is an extension of the human mind, it's simply observation and testing, limiting oneself to only observations made from one's senses fails to encapsulate the whole of existence. No x-rays, multiple sounds missing to us, our smell piss poor compared to a dog.
-
I repeatedly many pages ago said the same thing as above, you are clearly not interested in open debate. You were shown that causality is not a core concept of fundamental reality, if string theory or one of it's iterations are correct, even less so. Your argument fails do to having faulty underpinnings.
Multiple people and avxo previously mentioned that virtual particles pop into existence for no reason, you think the world works like a computer, binary logic, it's quantum, logic is incorrect, reality is actually counterintuitive.
You continue to mix up terms, before the big bang is like asking what's north or north, yet you persist. Not to mention even your logic is fundamentally flawed as the very premise you look to establish, all needs a cause, is itself broken to satisfy it's conclusion...absurd.
You appeal to Aquinas intelligence, the thing with intelligence is it allows one to move past names and terms and into the nitty gritty, the argument is all anyone should care about, not who it came from... His argument is flawed and has been debunked for centuries. You also misunderstand Aquinas, he is asserting that something is eternal, for the very reason that we have something.. existence. That is whatever exists has always existed as nothing could never have been as something cannot come from nothing. Now fast forward and science has answered the question much better, shit comes from "nothing", logic fails us. Just like our eyes suck compared to hubble, science is an extension of the human mind, it's simply observation and testing, limiting oneself to only observations made from one's senses fails to encapsulate the whole of existence. No x-rays, multiple sounds missing to us, our smell piss poor compared to a dog.
I've already address these points over and over again with you.
You don't believe in a first cause. I do. You think I am being illogical. I think you are being illogical. The universe had a beginning. That's been established. It did not always exist therefore it had to have a Creator.
You believe that particles just "pop into existence". That something comes from nothing.
I don't. I think that is illogical and irrational. You don't.
You don't think I want an open debate because I give you the same answers. I give you the same answers because you keep asking the same questions. Open debate for you means I have to agree with you.
I don't.
That should close the debate.
Thank you for your participation.
-
You don't believe in a first cause. I do. You think I am being illogical. I think you are being illogical.
We think you're being illogical by examining your statements. You think we're being illogical because we disagree with you. There's a difference.
The universe had a beginning. That's been established. It did not always exist therefore it had to have a Creator.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
You believe that particles just "pop into existence". That something comes from nothing.
No - we have a theory that explains observed behavior, and that theory has particle-antiparticle pairs emerging from the quantum vacuum. If you think the theory is flawed, point out its flaws. If you have an alternative theory that explains virtual particles or the Casimir effect, then by all means, lay it out there. And if you don't know enough physics to do either of those things, then graciously admit that's the case and stop repeating the same debunked nonsense.
You don't think I want an open debate because I give you the same answers. I give you the same answers because you keep asking the same questions. Open debate for you means I have to agree with you.
No, open debate means listening to what others are saying and addressing the concerns they raise and fixing the flaws that they identify in your argument.
You do none of those things. You insist on repeating the same thing, ignoring criticism that you're using words and concepts incorrectly and misconstruing or misapplying scientific terms.
How many times have we told you that "before" is a term that's meaningless to us outside of spacetime and thus, outside the Universe? How many times have we told you causality, as you use the term, presupposes a temporal total order?
You blame us for assuming that debate involves agreement with us. You whine that you didn't set out to prove anything or convince anyone. But your first post says you want to show that belief in a Creator is rational. Show it to whom? And how is that not attempting to convince?
You've been handled with kid gloves so far in this debate, and every time someone made contact you whined. Well, I think playtime is over and you now have to decide if you are ready to debate seriously and address the flaws in your argument.
-
I've already address these points over and over again with you.
You don't believe in a first cause. I do. You think I am being illogical. I think you are being illogical. The universe had a beginning. That's been established. It did not always exist therefore it had to have a Creator.
With respect, Necrosis and avxo have been explaining the flaws in your argument in different ways across the last two pages and you respond by returning to your initial position starting at reply 131. (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8414831#msg8414831) It's gotten a bit circular, you say causality supports your argument (in reply 132 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8414844#msg8414844)), causality is shot down (in reply 143 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8415980#msg8415980)) and you just repeat the argument (from reply 144 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8416015#msg8416015) onwards) as if nothing happened. Then things get weird, there is a non-sequitur quote from Hamlet (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8416042#msg8416042), an admission (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8416058#msg8416058) that you picked a fringe site because you couldn't find anything better to support your causality argument, a personal inquiry (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8416111#msg8416111), as if personal details are relevant to a debate, a highly defensive (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8417194#msg8417194) post and some more repeating of the initial position (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8417131#msg8417131). Meanwhile, people are explaining to you in different ways why causality is not applicable to the beginning of the physical universe (which is the premise to your God-Creator conclusion) and your reply is "I've already answered this"!
You are free to believe what you want, everyone respects that. But the rational case for a creator was demolished in this thread.
I don't. I think that is illogical and irrational. You don't.
Despite what anyone thinks experiments to that effect have taken place. (http://phys.org/news/2015-10-universe-weird-landmark-quantum.html)
You don't think I want an open debate because I give you the same answers. I give you the same answers because you keep asking the same questions. Open debate for you means I have to agree with you.
I don't.
That should close the debate.
Thank you for your participation.
I think in any debate, it is the prerogative of a participant to back out. Certainly, one participant does not need to accept the other's view. A debate's conclusion is left to the audience's judgement. However, It it is another thing entirely to repeat your position in the face of a rebuttal or say "I have already answered that" and then decide that the debate is over. This won't do, sir.
If you don't have a rebuttal of your own, then the debate is over.
Sorry for butting in, I just thought this was a bit of a cop-out.
-
Yes, it was not petty and a very important distinction in which I was too casual about.
Yes, I do believe it is more logical to propose a first cause. Otherwise the causal chain goes backwards forever. Now I cannot disprove this, but I find this scenario takes a far greater leap in faith. That was one of the purposes of my argument. That a Theist also requires faith and their position isn't inherently more valid than mine.
I use the term "cause" regarding the Big Bang in the sense it stemmed from something else. Now as far as the "Why?" Well, my friend, that is a question I want answered as well. In a world where the bad far outweighs the good and is full of needless suffering I agonize almost daily what was the point. That's why I often make the point that a far more interesting question to me is not that there is a God that created the universe but rather, is God good?
Without matter there is no energy and vice versa.
No. But I'm not sure what you mean by theoretically. When it comes to this point anything is possible.
Answer above.
I'm not sure I get you. Are you saying you don't believe virtual particles exist or that you consider them mass?
-
With respect, Necrosis and avxo have been explaining the flaws in your argument in different ways across the last two pages and you respond by returning to your initial position starting at reply 131. (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8414831#msg8414831) It's gotten a bit circular, you say causality supports your argument (in reply 132 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8414844#msg8414844)), causality is shot down (in reply 143 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8415980#msg8415980)) and you just repeat the argument (from reply 144 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8416015#msg8416015) onwards) as if nothing happened. Then things get weird, there is a non-sequitur quote from Hamlet (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8416042#msg8416042), an admission (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8416058#msg8416058) that you picked a fringe site because you couldn't find anything better to support your causality argument, a personal inquiry (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8416111#msg8416111), as if personal details are relevant to a debate, a highly defensive (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8417194#msg8417194) post and some more repeating of the initial position (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604994.msg8417131#msg8417131). Meanwhile, people are explaining to you in different ways why causality is not applicable to the beginning of the physical universe (which is the premise to your God-Creator conclusion) and your reply is "I've already answered this"!
You are free to believe what you want, everyone respects that. But the rational case for a creator was demolished in this thread.
Despite what anyone thinks experiments to that effect have taken place. (http://phys.org/news/2015-10-universe-weird-landmark-quantum.html)
I think in any debate, it is the prerogative of a participant to back out. Certainly, one participant does not need to accept the other's view. A debate's conclusion is left to the audience's judgement. However, It it is another thing entirely to repeat your position in the face of a rebuttal or say "I have already answered that" and then decide that the debate is over. This won't do, sir.
If you don't have a rebuttal of your own, then the debate is over.
Sorry for butting in, I just thought this was a bit of a cop-out.
I started to read your post but stopped as soon as you said that I picked a fringe site because I admitted that I couldn't find anything better. That is completely false. It was the questioner that accused me of that.
I stopped reading there.
I am one person and I try to answer every question, point by point, I am going to have to be more selective. If a lie is told about me then I will now disregard the post.
The impasse as a I see it is that I believe in a first cause, the rest believe in an infinite regression. I can't prove that there is a first cause. You can't prove an infinite regression. I believe that I can speak in terms of a "before" as in before the universe was created. The Creator existed in the "before". The others argue that something came from nothing. I can't prove you wrong but I think it requires a greater leap in faith. I am going to say this again so that this issue never comes up again and I don't have to repeat myself: I cannot prove there is a Creator and you cannot prove an infinite regression. These are matters of faith. The difference is that I am honest enough with you and with myself to admit this whereas as the rest of you speak almost in terms of provable fact.
-
We think you're being illogical by examining your statements. You think we're being illogical because we disagree with you. There's a difference.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
No, absolutely and categorically wrong. That is your interpretation. And a wildly inaccurate one. Show me one example where I think it's illogical for you to examine my statements. You, and others, have been examining and questions this entire thread. And I have address every single issue over and over again.
No - we have a theory that explains observed behavior, and that theory has particle-antiparticle pairs emerging from the quantum vacuum. If you think the theory is flawed, point out its flaws. If you have an alternative theory that explains virtual particles or the Casimir effect, then by all means, lay it out there. And if you don't know enough physics to do either of those things, then graciously admit that's the case and stop repeating the same debunked nonsense.
I do not know physics well enough to address particle-anitparticle, quantum vacuums and the Casmir effect.
But I don't think you have to be an expert in quantum physics to believe that because there was a Big Bang there had to be something that caused it. A Creator.
As much as I think that the idea that something comes from nothing or that there is an infinite regression (a pre-creator, pre-pre-creator....) requires a far greater leap in faith, I am aware that neither can be proved so though I may say it's more irrational and more illogical, I am always respectful to those that hold that position and will not insult them by calling it nonsense.
No, open debate means listening to what others are saying and addressing the concerns they raise and fixing the flaws that they identify in your argument.
You do none of those things. You insist on repeating the same thing, ignoring criticism that you're using words and concepts incorrectly and misconstruing or misapplying scientific terms.
Show me one example where I did that.
How many times have we told you that "before" is a term that's meaningless to us outside of spacetime and thus, outside the Universe? How many times have we told you causality, as you use the term, presupposes a temporal total order?
How many times have I told you that "before" is a term that has great meaning to me and I have no issue thinking of a "before" outside the universe. Many seem to have trouble comprehending this. It's like saying that no numbers can exist before zero. And from a certain point of view I can understand that. Zero is nothing. How can we have less than nothing?
But we do.
Causality, as I use it, presupposes a temporal total order. There is order in the universe. God has a plan.
You blame us for assuming that debate involves agreement with us. You whine that you didn't set out to prove anything or convince anyone. But your first post says you want to show that belief in a Creator is rational. Show it to whom? And how is that not attempting to convince?
I don't whine. I make a genuine and serious attempt to answer all questions and comments. Don't personally insult me.
"Show to whom?" How about the reader interested enough to read all that. And proving an argument can be rational and science based is far different from trying to prove a Creator exist. I didn't do that. And whether one agrees with me or not insofar as the existence of a Creator is a moot point for me. In this context there is zero incentive for me to try to convince anybody to change their world view and theology.
You've been handled with kid gloves so far in this debate, and every time someone made contact you whined. Well, I think playtime is over and you now have to decide if you are ready to debate seriously and address the flaws in your argument.
Don't threaten me and don't insult me.
I tell you what, here's my decision, tough guy, pat yourself on the back and declare victory and leave with your nose in the air and the hubris by those of your ilk.
You have put words in my mouth -- just made it up. You insult those that don't agree with you as "challenged". You accuse me of trying to force my views down your throat. You just insulted me personally and now you threaten me.
Of all the contributors to this thread you're the only one I am beginning to very much dislike.
How you present yourself here is very unbecoming of a person who claims to be a scientist.
-
I'm not sure I get you. Are you saying you don't believe virtual particles exist or that you consider them mass?
Of all the questions I've gotten I like yours the best. I like your insistence on precise language and asking challenging questions pertinent to the discussion without the show offy arrogance and condescension of axxo.
But you have taken me to my limit as I am not a physicist. Because my understanding of a virtual particle is that it is more of a conceptual entity than real brick and stone, then I have to admit that I do not know if they have "mass".
-
No, absolutely and categorically wrong. That is your interpretation. And a wildly inaccurate one. Show me one example where I think it's illogical for you to examine my statements. You, and others, have been examining and questions this entire thread. And I have address every single issue over and over again.
Repeating yourself isn't "addressing" an issue.
But I don't think you have to be an expert in quantum physics to believe that because there was a Big Bang there had to be something that caused it. A Creator.
Look, it's simple: you prefer to posit a creator. You obviously believe in one passionately. More power to you, I guess, but don't pretend that your position is rational and grounded in logic, especially when you claim that a Creator is necessary because everything needs a cause and you then turn around and claim that the Creator is causeless.
I prefer to simply say that our current cosmological model and understanding of the Universe prevents us from answering the "what came before and caused the Big Bang" question - a question that, as asked, makes little sense anyways.
Show me one example where I did that.
You continue to use causality, despite being shown that causality is not a fundamental property of nature at the quantum level. You continue to use "before the Big Bang" as if time and temporal ordering make sense outside of the context of the Universe.
How many times have I told you that "before" is a term that has great meaning to me and I have no issue thinking of a "before" outside the universe.
You can tell me a million times, it won't change anything. You may have no issue thinking of a "before" outside the Universe, but the rest of us, which like to use words in a way that makes sense do. If you wish to communicate with others, then you should probably use words correctly.
Many seem to have trouble comprehending this. It's like saying that no numbers can exist before zero. And from a certain point of view I can understand that. Zero is nothing. How can we have less than nothing?
I'm happy to discuss number theory. In mathematics we have the "Natural numbers" (denoted by N) and the "Integers" (denoted by Z). The difference between them is that Z contains the negative whole numbers, whereas N does not. Counterintuitively, both have the same cardinality (that is, they're both the same size).
But thinking of it terms of "less than nothing" is wrong. A negative acceleration isn't "less than nothing" for example.
Causality, as I use it, presupposes a temporal total order. There is order in the universe. God has a plan.
You and I aren't using the term "order" in the same way. And as for God, before we talk about his plan, it'd help if you'd define what you mean by the term "God".
I don't whine. I make a genuine and serious attempt to answer all questions and comments. Don't personally insult me.
If you made a genuine and serious attempt to answer all questions and comments you wouldn't continue using "before" in a meaningless way, nor would you repeat the same thing over and over again, ignoring the criticisms that others have made. If pointing that out insults you, then so be it.
Don't threaten me and don't insult me.
Threaten you?
I tell you what, here's my decision, tough guy, pat yourself on the back and declare victory and leave with your nose in the air and the hubris by those of your ilk.
My musculature is too well-developed for me to be able to pat myself on the back. Best I can do is tap myself on the traps.
You have put words in my mouth -- just made it up. You insult those that don't agree with you as "challenged". You accuse me of trying to force my views down your throat. You just insulted me personally and now you threaten me.
I didn't accuse you of trying to force any views down my throat - you're misrepresenting my post which is ironic considering that you're complaining about how I put words in your mouth.
-
Repeating yourself isn't "addressing" an issue.
Look, it's simple: you prefer to posit a creator. You obviously believe in one passionately. More power to you, I guess, but don't pretend that your position is rational and grounded in logic, especially when you claim that a Creator is necessary because everything needs a cause and you then turn around and claim that the Creator is causeless.
I prefer to simply say that our current cosmological model and understanding of the Universe prevents us from answering the "what came before and caused the Big Bang" question - a question that, as asked, makes little sense anyways.
You continue to use causality, despite being shown that causality is not a fundamental property of nature at the quantum level. You continue to use "before the Big Bang" as if time and temporal ordering make sense outside of the context of the Universe.
You can tell me a million times, it won't change anything. You may have no issue thinking of a "before" outside the Universe, but the rest of us, which like to use words in a way that makes sense do. If you wish to communicate with others, then you should probably use words correctly.
I'm happy to discuss number theory. In mathematics we have the "Natural numbers" (denoted by N) and the "Integers" (denoted by Z). The difference between them is that Z contains the negative whole numbers, whereas N does not. Counterintuitively, both have the same cardinality (that is, they're both the same size).
But thinking of it terms of "less than nothing" is wrong. A negative acceleration isn't "less than nothing" for example.
You and I aren't using the term "order" in the same way. And as for God, before we talk about his plan, it'd help if you'd define what you mean by the term "God".
If you made a genuine and serious attempt to answer all questions and comments you wouldn't continue using "before" in a meaningless way, nor would you repeat the same thing over and over again, ignoring the criticisms that others have made. If pointing that out insults you, then so be it.
Threaten you?
My musculature is too well-developed for me to be able to pat myself on the back. Best I can do is tap myself on the traps.
I didn't accuse you of trying to force any views down my throat - you're misrepresenting my post which is ironic considering that you're complaining about how I put words in your mouth.
You are more interested in promoting your agenda than seeking the truth. Your mind is already made up. I've been on both sides of the fence. You have a very arrogant, pompous and condescending manner and seem very emotionally invested. I find you particularly offensive.
So, again, with all due hubris, congratulate yourself and reassure yourself that you are so much smarter than everyone else and enjoy your life void of any higher meaning.
You are wasting my time.
You are dismissed.
-
Before more personal attacks/inevitable death threats take place and for anyone who still reads this thread:
The rational case for a creator was shown to be invalid on page 6. Therefore, it can be said there is no creator.
-
Before more personal attacks/inevitable death threats take place and for anyone who still reads this thread:
The rational case for a creator was shown to be invalid on page 6. Therefore, it can be said there is no creator.
Two questions, and from now on I insist on being answered if you want an answer from me.
1. What specific post on page six shows a rational case for a Creator is invalid? Quote it here.
2. How do YOU explain how the universe came to be and how it happened? Don't refer to other posts. I would like a fresh answer from you.
-
How could God have a cause?
-
How could God have a cause?
If everything must have a cause - that's the basic premise in the argument that pellius makes - then how could he not?
-
If everything must have a cause - that's the basic premise in the argument that pellius makes - then how could he not?
I get what you're saying from the perspective of the argument.
Now from a Christian perspective of God - the all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal magic man in the sky who created all that is, was and ever will be - how could he have been caused/created/derived by something/someone outside of himself?
The idea that God is uncaused is scoffed at as ridiculous and illogical. Cool. So, aside from casually dismissing God, what or who is the logical source/cause of God?
-
Now from a Christian perspective of God - the all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal magic man in the sky who created all that is, was and ever will be - how could he have been caused/created/derived by something/someone outside of himself?
Well, maybe you and I and the entire Universe are algorithms inside a computer simulation and God is the programmer in front of the screen, who's all-powerful and all-knowing and created all that is, was and ever will be. And he's just waiting for 5PM to come around, so he can go home and enjoy a quiet, relaxing weekend.
The idea that God is uncaused is scoffed at as ridiculous and illogical.
No. The idea that nothing can be uncaused and everything requires a creator, except for the creator who is uncaused and doesn't is what's scoffed at as ridiculous and illogical.
So, aside from casually dismissing God, what or who is the logical source/cause of God?
You'll hate my answer, but what if we are the logical source/cause of God?
-
Well, maybe you and I and the entire Universe are algorithms inside a computer simulation and God is the programmer in front of the screen, who's all-powerful and all-knowing and created all that is, was and ever will be. And he's just waiting for 5PM to come around, so he can go home and enjoy a quiet, relaxing weekend.
No. The idea that nothing can be uncaused and everything requires a creator, except for the creator who is uncaused and doesn't is what's scoffed at as ridiculous and illogical.
You'll hate my answer, but what if we are the logical source/cause of God?
Hey, If I'm in the matrix just keep me plugged in! I can't eat that protein oatmeal stuff everyday.
I understand. My question is given who God is (and just granting his existence for a moment) how could he be caused? I can't reason it, but maybe one of y'all can.
I don't hate it. I'm just asking to step outside that perspective for a bit.
-
Hey, If I'm in the matrix just keep me plugged in! I can't eat that protein oatmeal stuff everyday.
You and me both... I need to eat like a normal fat American.
I understand. My question is given who God is (and just granting his existence for a moment) how could he be caused?
I don't hate it. I'm just asking to step outside that perspective for a bit.
It's hard, if not impossible, to answer that question even if we have the entire Bible to draw from unchallenged. But that doesn't mean he was uncaused.
-
You and me both... I need to eat like a normal fat American.
It's hard, if not impossible, to answer that question even if we have the entire Bible to draw from unchallenged. But that doesn't mean he was uncaused.
Best I can reason, if we enter the Christian worldview and consider who God is (as stated previously) and then suppose a something/someone that caused God to be then that something/someone would be outside of God and greater than God and would be God.
Then who created God that created God? And who created God that created God that created God? The classic infinite regression.
For God to be God he is uncaused. That's impossible for me to fully reason and understand completely, but yet possible for me to accept. If something began to exist then it has a cause. God is the ultimate being and is eternal, existing from everlasting to everlasting...he is without beginning or end. For God to be God there is nothing greater than him that could have created him or caused him to be. There is only God above all else existing beyond the boundaries of time and space as we know it.
Just my brief take.
-
But you have taken me to my limit as I am not a physicist. Because my understanding of a virtual particle is that it is more of a conceptual entity than real brick and stone, then I have to admit that I do not know if they have "mass".
This was the point I was trying to make.As others have already said, in a world without mass- only energy- the rules of physics are likely different. The idea of time is different.
Speaking of which, you scoffed at the poster who claimed time doesn't exist, but if you are going to have an existential discussion about physics then it seems like perception is an important aspect. You acknowledged that there is at least one dimension we can't perceive, so who's to say that dimension is not as important as time? Perhaps it was the preeminent dimension in a universe that preceded matter? Perhaps it's the preeminent dimension in the universe that resulted from the creation of matter and we just don't have the ability to perceive it? Perhaps "time" is just a way for sentient beings to grasp a much more complicated concept? If that's the case, then a first cause isn't necessary. It would be as pointless as asking where the beginning of the earth is.
-
This was the point I was trying to make.As others have already said, in a world without mass- only energy- the rules of physics are likely different. The idea of time is different.
Speaking of which, you scoffed at the poster who claimed time doesn't exist, but if you are going to have an existential discussion about physics then it seems like perception is an important aspect. You acknowledged that there is at least one dimension we can't perceive, so who's to say that dimension is not as important as time? Perhaps it was the preeminent dimension in a universe that preceded matter? Perhaps it's the preeminent dimension in the universe that resulted from the creation of matter and we just don't have the ability to perceive it? Perhaps "time" is just a way for sentient beings to grasp a much more complicated concept? If that's the case, then a first cause isn't necessary. It would be as pointless as asking where the beginning of the earth is.
I said time didn't exist? And what poster did I "scoff" at for saying that it did. In my first post I specifically stated that the universe: time, space and matter had a beginning. A beginning that scientist estimate to be around 13.7 billion years ago.
And, again, perhaps a first cause isn't necessary, I can't prove otherwise and admitted so. Something came from nothing. Matter always existed.
But I don't know why that is any more rational and logical and requires a leap of faith than a first cause.
Also, for the sake of preciseness and clarity, I said that we can't
perceive dimensions higher than our own. Whether there are actually higher dimensions or not I don't know.
-
And, again, perhaps a first cause isn't necessary, I can't prove otherwise and admitted so. Something came from nothing. Matter always existed.
But I don't know why that is any more rational and logical and requires a leap of faith than a first cause.
Occam's razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).
Also, for the sake of preciseness and clarity, I said that we can't
perceive dimensions higher than our own. Whether there are actually higher dimensions or not I don't know.
Higher dimensions likely exist, although it'll be exceedingly difficult for us to visualize what that means (I can show you an interesting video that shows the three-dimensional shadow cast from a four-dimensional rotating hypercube that will amuse and confuse you!). From a theoretical perspective, they're likely "curved" into each other on special kinds of manifolds, making them inaccessible to us.
-
I said time didn't exist? And what poster did I "scoff" at for saying that it did. In my first post I specifically stated that the universe: time, space and matter had a beginning. A beginning that scientist estimate to be around 13.7 billion years ago.
And, again, perhaps a first cause isn't necessary, I can't prove otherwise and admitted so. Something came from nothing. Matter always existed.
But I don't know why that is any more rational and logical and requires a leap of faith than a first cause.
Also, for the sake of preciseness and clarity, I said that we can't
perceive dimensions higher than our own. Whether there are actually higher dimensions or not I don't know.
Another poster said that time doesn't exist and you scoffed at him. I believe you said it was the kind of stuff talked about by high schoolers in vans or something like that.
-
Another poster said that time doesn't exist and you scoffed at him. I believe you said it was the kind of stuff talked about by high schoolers in vans or something like that.
It was da vinci's new age hippie talk that I was "scoffing" at.
"We are all gods. The universe is god." "There is no such thing as time." "We are the universe itself thinking about itself."
It was that kind of talk that conjured up images of Volkswagon vans, high school parking lots, and bong pipes. He was musing and philosophizing and I didn't want to go in that direction
-
It was da vinci's new age hippie talk that I was "scoffing" at.
"We are all gods. The universe is god." "There is no such thing as time." "We are the universe itself thinking about itself."
It was that kind of talk that conjured up images of Volkswagon vans, high school parking lots, and bong pipes. He was musing and philosophizing and I didn't want to go in that direction
His statement about us being the universe is accurate and factually correct. We are made up of the "stuff" created by fusion in the heart of a star, it exploded, planets, formed, we came from planets etc.. We are the universe come alive.
Some go further, talking about quantum entanglement, all is entangled.