The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Elioenai26]

Who said the Universe came into existence? Not me.

So what is your position regarding the universe's origin?

Who said that the Universe - if it came into existence - needed a cause? Not me.

Logic demands it.

I notice you didn´t answer my post #77. For to continue the discussion meaningfully it´s absolutely crucial that you resolve the issue pointed out there. Your continuous application of a double standard is not a basis for a fruitful conversation. Please, tell me which way you want to go.

I have replied to post 77.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Logic demands it.

You mean logic existed before the universe?

 

[Elioenai26]

That is a bad analogy. The ball was placed on the pillow at some time. The event you are describing is not something timeless. If there were no temporal relation, then we would be just as warranted in concluding that the pillow depression caused the ball!

The moment the ball was placed on the cushion, the effect was made. That is what the word simultaneous means.

But you are breaking that principle by positing the existence of a past cause unlike every other cause that we observe today.

The Principle Says that the universe must have cause because everything that comes into existence has a cause. This is witnessed uniformly in our observations.

The Cause (God) must be unlike the effect (the universe) in that it is beyond the effect in all respects. Just like a Watchmaker is "greater" in all respects to the watch he makes.

You seem to think that the material and immaterial have nothing in common but they do. They both exist. They both have being. The fact that the immaterial and the material can relate should not be a surprise to anyone who believes that both exist. And, as we have shown, matter is not all there is. There is a Mind who made matter, and there are minds that know it. If we have both mind and matter, then the material and the immaterial can and do relate. To deny this is self-defeating, since materialism itself is an idea that a mind has about matter. Further, my mind is commanding my body (arms and fingers) to write these words. Anyone who denies this has to use his hand or mouth to express these ideas of his mind - which again is self-defeating.

It was to demonstrate that a system need not have the same properties as all of its parts. You claimed that everything we see in the observable universe, from houses to galaxies, have the property of being caused. You then argued that the universe must also have been caused because it is the sum of all its parts, which are caused. As you see with the triangles, the object as a whole (the hexagon) need not have the same property (triangle shape) as all of its parts.

You are mistaken. I said the universe must have a cause because it came into existence at some point in the past, not because it has many parts in it that have causes.

I'm taking immaterial to mean nothing because there is nothing to which I can attach the word "immaterial" to.

So you would say that your mind, your thoughts, and ideas are nothing then?

Not buying this dualism.

What do you mean by dualism?

That doesn't make gravity immaterial.

So gravity is material?

Gravity is only effectual so long as there is matter. The mind is only effectual so long as there is matter to it - the brain. The moment you take away all matter, where is gravity? It's gone. The moment you take away the matter of the mind, where is the mind? It is gone.

The mind of a "material" being is effectual so long as there is "matter" to it. When you assert that to take away the matter of the mind of a material being is to render the mind "gone" is not something you can say with any certainty. Anyway, what do you mean by "gone". If you mean it no longer exists, how do you know this? Can you observe it's whereabouts?

 

[Elioenai26]

You mean logic existed before the universe?

Where did I say that?

I said when you see something, you assume that it came from somewhere, you assume that it was made right. Yes or no.

 

[Gracchus]

The imaginitive metaphysical theory that quantum mechanics refutes the Causal Principle has already been shown to be at best, ungrounded and intentionally misleading. I supplied evidence of this in an earlier post.

Well, quantum mechanics is kind of anti-intuitional. The only evidence it has going for, aside from the strict mathematical exposition is that it works!

A minor detail to be sure, but kind of problematical for your position.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The moment the ball was placed on the cushion, the effect was made. That is what the word simultaneous means.

The very sentence in which you describe the event invokes time! If it didn't, then there would be no temporal sequence to your sentence, and you would just as readily have said "The cushion depressed, and the ball was the effect". The fact that you recognise that there is a sequence to the event speaks against what you are trying to argue.

The Principle Says that the universe must have cause because everything that comes into existence has a cause. This is witnessed uniformly in our observations.

The Cause (God) must be unlike the effect (the universe) in that it is beyond the effect in all respects. Just like a Watchmaker is "greater" in all respects to the watch he makes.

The first paragraph contradicts the second. What is witnessed uniformly in our observations is that an effect is not unlike its cause. In your second paragraph, you claim that this uniformity in our observations is violated. If you want to argue from the uniformity of our observations, then you've already ruled out a supernatural cause, as we do not uniformly observe causes unlike their effects.

You seem to think that the material and immaterial have nothing in common but they do. They both exist. They both have being. The fact that the immaterial and the material can relate should not be a surprise to anyone who believes that both exist. And, as we have shown, matter is not all there is.

Actually, you haven't shown that. You believe that both exist, that much is true.

There is a Mind who made matter, and there are minds that know it. If we have both mind and matter, then the material and the immaterial can and do relate. To deny this is self-defeating, since materialism itself is an idea that a mind has about matter. Further, my mind is commanding my body (arms and fingers) to write these words. Anyone who denies this has to use his hand or mouth to express these ideas of his mind - which again is self-defeating.

Minds are not immaterial. Your mind is your brain, which commands the rest your body to type these words.

So gravity is material?

Would there be any gravity without matter?

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, quantum mechanics is kind of anti-intuitional. The only evidence it has going for, aside from the strict mathematical exposition is that it works!

A minor detail to be sure, but kind of problematical for your position.

Thanks for the input. Do you know with what regards quantum mechanics is referenced in my post?

I don't think you do my friend.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Where did I say that?

I said when you see something, you assume that it came from somewhere, you assume that it was made right. Yes or no.

You said "Logic demands it". My question was whether that means logic existed prior to the universe.

 

[Elioenai26]

You said "Logic demands it". My question was whether that means logic existed prior to the universe.

God is the source of all logic. He is the paradigm of logic, reason, and rationality.

He existed before the universe was made.

So yes.

As rational creatures we have the ability to reason and use logic to make inferences about the world we live in.

Now if you dont agree with the above, then I would like for you to tell me how the universe came into existence without mentioning God in your explanation.

 

[Gracchus]

Thanks for the input. Do you know with what regards quantum mechanics is referenced in my post?

I don't think you do my friend.

I thought your point was this:

The imaginitive metaphysical theory that quantum mechanics refutes the Causal Principle has already been shown to be at best, ungrounded and intentionally misleading.

And what I pointed out was, that quantum mechanics works! The math works. The theory makes weird, unintuitive predictions that are nevertheless verified experimentally. If you have demonstrated otherwise, send a paper to a journal and get a white tie and tales for the Nobel presentation ceremony.

And, you maintain, all of those who have actually studied the subject are overlooking the obvious and/or lying! According to you, nobody in all that vainglorious throng of smart, proud, overacheivers would blow the whistle and make himself famous.

Compared to your claims, quantum theory is a walk in the park!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God is the source of all logic. He is the paradigm of logic, reason, and rationality.

He existed before the universe was made.

So yes.

As rational creatures we have the ability to reason and use logic to make inferences about the world we live in.

Now if you dont agree with the above, then I would like for you to tell me how the universe came into existence without mentioning God in your explanation.

How did he exist before the universe was made? You earlier claimed that time was created at the Big Bang. If that is correct, then how can you speak of a time before that?

 

[Davian]

Im surprised Davian that you could seriously maintain that the universe is eternal!!!

I must say however, that you are a man of great faith if you maintain this! Who knew????

I will take the winking smiley and the misrepresentation of what I said as you lacking a serious response to my points.

 

[Elioenai26]

How did he exist before the universe was made? You earlier claimed that time was created at the Big Bang. If that is correct, then how can you speak of a time before that?

Answer my question please. Now if you do not want to answer the question, then I think we can conclude our discussion because this can go on and on ad infinitum, well, not actually, but you get the point!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Answer my question please. Now if you do not want to answer the question, then I think we can conclude our discussion because this can go on and on ad infinitum, well, not actually, but you get the point!

I don't need to invoke God in my explanation for the universe's origins because I can honestly admit that I do not know how the universe came to be, except that it did. And I am content to let that mystery remain, allowing the cosmologists to figure it out, if it is indeed knowable at all.

You seem to think that "God did it" is an intellectually superior explanation to "I don't know". It's not. Your explanation is about as satisfying as saying that it all happened by magic. In fact, your explanation is the same as saying that it happened by magic -- immaterial nothing created material everything.

Now, to my question: how can you speak of a time before the Big Bang given that you've earlier said that time was created at the Big Bang?

 

[Davian]

...
Is my statement true or false?

The statement being true or false depends on what we can discover and investigate about the claim. As it is now, I have no evidence to make a judgment on, nothing to corroborate your claim. So I have to withold my judgment.

But this much is certain, either what you say is in your pocket, or it is not.

In post #21, you maintained that the opposite of true is false.

If you do not think my statement is true, then you must think it false.

Or are you an agnostic?

Elioenai, you have appeared to have missed this post;

Are you an agnostic?

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't need to invoke God in my explanation for the universe's origins because I can honestly admit that I do not know how the universe came to be, except that it did. And I am content to let that mystery remain, allowing the cosmologists to figure it out, if it is indeed knowable at all.

You seem to think that "God did it" is an intellectually superior explanation to "I don't know". It's not. Your explanation is about as satisfying as saying that it all happened by magic. In fact, your explanation is the same as saying that it happened by magic -- immaterial nothing created material everything.

Now, to my question: how can you speak of a time before the Big Bang given that you've earlier said that time was created at the Big Bang?

I have never in all of my posts spoken of a time before time.

But something must be timelessly eternal in order to have created time.

And whatever created the universe must also possess several other attributes besides this one.

Now we know this because of looking at what the universe is. It is spatial, hence the creator must be nonspatial. It is material, hence, the creator must be immaterial.

This of course is a logical and rational inference even if we do not know how to explain "how" this could be. The beauty of it all is that we do not have to be able to know how this entity could be all of these things, but we do know that the evidence warrants such a being exist.

Life as we know it, the universe and all that there is cries out that there is a creator, an intelligent Mind behind it all.

Science takes us to the point where we must leave her and use other disciplines pertinent to our position to understand how and why things are the way they are.

The whole point of this thread is to show that either path you choose requires an exercise of faith.

Faith that God created the universe is the rational and reasonable step in the direction of where the evidence leads us. Science cannot hold our hand when we make this step, but we must turn and say thank you to it for leading us this far.

Christians maintain that it is far more incredible to believe the universe just spontaneously self-generated itself. It goes against all reason and rationality to maintain this.

We maintain that it is far more reasonable for their to be a Creator who is the Greatest Conceivable Being who created the universe. It is also the most simple explanation for the data.

To maintain anything else requires incredible faith in hypotheses and metaphysical theories which have no scientific or philosophical grounds and which are at best, purely imaginative.

After looking at the evidence you either accept that it is extremely more plausible that God exists as opposed to Him not, or you maintain some other unscientific, ungrounded incoherent hypothesis as to why something exists at all.

If you hold the latter, then in it will be "inspite" of the evidence, not because of it.

It shall be an act of the will to choose an explanation other than God. And that, with no good intellectual reason.

And to do this would require great faith indeed. In fact it would be akin to you being a believer in scientism.

The Holy Scriptures time and time again tells us to look up into the heavens and witness the majesty and awesomeness of it all and know that God made it all. But some cannot allow God into "their " world. I find this most ironic and it serves only to show us that we really do have a choice and that we were fearfully and wonderfully made with the freedom to choose.

I hope and pray you choose Him my friend.

 

[quatona]

The only logical explanation for the universe is that an immaterial being created it.

This is the only logical, reasonable, rational, supported explanation.

I don´t even know how this is an answer to my post.

 

[quatona]

So what is your position regarding the universe's origin?

I hold no position. I don´t even know if "the universe´s origin" is a meaningful term. I have no clue, honestly.

Logic demands it.

Ipse dixit.

 

[quatona]

Explain where and how I have done this.



How does it violate "those laws"? You will have to be specific sir, just saying my position violates "those laws", is vague.

You do it all the time. Last example was your post to Gardarene:
You asked "Have you ever observed this...?" (implying that explanation about the universe must conform with what we observe in the universe), while your own explanation proposes plenty of processes that are not observed in the universe.


All this has been done multiple times and by multiple posters.
In case you missed it, here´s my request again:

You have to make up your mind whether an explanation concerning the universe must conform with the laws observed within the universe, or whether this is not a requirement for the explanation.

This is an urgent request.Simply answer it, so that we have clarification on which basis you want to discuss explanations. Please answer it soon, directly and straightforward.

Which is it?

 

[quatona]

Logic demands it.

As soon as you will have presented your "scientific evidence" we will start having a look whether the conclusions you draw from it are logically sound. In this order.