E
Elioenai26
Guest
Since I am not understanding you, explain how God is unlike any other cause we observe.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Since I am not understanding you, explain how God is unlike any other cause we observe.
Gadarene
-______-
- Apr 16, 2012
- 11,461
- 2,507
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Woah! Stop presupposing your darn answers! We don't agree that it's God! Loaded question!
No, the point is that it's debatable whether our everyday experience of causality (in a realm where there is time) applies to a realm without time.
No, we are discussing causality outwith time. Leave your presumptions out of it.
No, this is an assertion. No evidence for God exists, so there is no "paradigm".
If you're just going to assume your God into existance, then why bother to make the KCA in the first place?
Which is clearly hypocritical. You had no problem applying a particular idea of causality to the topic when you thought it proved your God, now you're flinging every fallacy you can name to the four winds when someone does the exact same thing that calls your argument into question.
Upvote
0
Gadarene
-______-
- Apr 16, 2012
- 11,461
- 2,507
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Right! As I said in my original post, I don't know! How is that a problem?
Contrast that to you or your strawman atheist which definitely and erroneously concludes that it's one or the other.
Depending on whether or not the Standard Model ultimately holds, of course, but whether it is a singularity or quantum vacuum, the point is none of the main theories claim that the universe arose from nothing that is actually no-thing. A singularity or a quantum vacuum - whichever is more applicable - are not nothing.
And as ever, they were inadequate
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Your statement is self defeating or simply wrong.
You claim that we have no means of reaching any firm conclusions about the supernatural, yet you claim to know it's differentess and that that is all there is to know about it.
So there are at least two things you claim to know about the supernatural, therefore to say: we have no means of reaching any firm conlusions about it is either wrong, or self defeating!
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Right! As I said in my original post, I don't know! How is that a problem?
Contrast that to you or your strawman atheist which definitely and erroneously concludes that it's one or the other.
Depending in whether or not the Standard Model holds, of course, but whether it is a singularity or quantum vacuum, the point is none of the main theories claim that the universe arose from nothing that is actually no-thing. A singularity or a quantum vacuum - whichever is more applicable - are not nothing.
And as ever, they were inadequate
And since logic and the absurdity of an infinite regress tell us that the singularity was not eternal, then we have to poist a cause for the singularity. See how easy that is?
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Then you have demolished your own argument. You say we observe causes and their effects everyday, and that this principle is so essential that it must apply to the entire universe. Great. We might tentatively agree on that point. But then you break away from the causes and effects we observe everyday and start talking about a "cause" whose properties are entirely unfamiliar to the things we attach the word "cause" to. Apparently the only thing this first cause has in common with every other cause is that it is causally efficacious (somehow).
Well then why do we need an explanation for the universe at all? I'm with Carl Sagan on this one... if your answer is "God always existed. Can't explain any further than that", then why don't we end it one step earlier by saying that "The universe always existed in some form or another. Can't explain any further that." Surely that would be a whole lot more parsimonious.
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Consider how you have described this "cause" -- supernatural, immaterial, without space and without time. These properties do not belong to any other thing that we call a cause.
Yes, those are the only two things we know about it (assuming that it even exists). And what a useless piece of knowledge that is. It has no bearing on our lives.Suppose I tell you that there is some world "beyond" this one. I tell you that this world is astonishingly and unimaginably different to our own. So different that you could be immortal in this other world. "Sounds great. How do I get there?" you ask me. Well, I reply, you must do whatever I tell you to do, because I'm the prophet for the lord of this other world in the beyond. At this point you can either (1) trust me and do as I (opps... I mean God) commands, or (2) say "If all you can tell me is how different this other world is, and you can't demonstrate anything beyond that, then why should I trust any of your claims about this other world?"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
You must shoulder the burden of proof as to why you think a cause must necessarily and always be identical to it's effect. Good luck!
No sir, not that easy. To maintain that the universe is eternal is to do so inspite of the evidence, not because of it!
That is why Einstein was dishonest when he tried to insert a cosmological constant into his equations on the theory of General Relativity. He knew the theological implications of a finite universe.
Einstein's discovery of General Relativity is well known to those in the scientific community. It was the beginning of a string of events that led to a greater understanding of our universe. Einstein's calculations revealed that there was actually a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space. Being irritated by this discovery he later introduced a cosmological constant into his equations to make them seem to point to the fact that the universe was static. This deception, which was discovered by another scientist, Alexander Friedmann, was what Einstein called: "the greatest blunder of my life".( From George Gamow, My World Line, 1970)
British cosmologist Arthur Eddington sympathized with Einstein. He stated: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me...I should like to find a loophole."( Quoted in Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1995, 57)
Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter and astronomer Edwin Hubble subsequently confirmed through observation that the universe indeed was expanding and that therefore the General Relativity of Einstein was true.
Lets look at some of the corroborating evidence.
1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. We experience it everyday when we drive our cars. We put fuel in the tank and as the engine runs, fuel is used. When the fuel runs out the engines shuts off. Unless fuel is put in the tank, the engine will not run. The universe is this way. One day it will run out of energy. Like a flashlight loses its power if left on overnight. Since the universe is using energy that it has, it must have had a beginning, if not, it would have been eternal, but if it had been eternal, it would have run out of usable energy. The second law is tied to the first which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words it has only a finite amount of energy.
The Law of Entropy is associated with this as well. This law states that over time, nature tends to bring things to disorder, not order. Cars rust, trees rot, clothes tear and wear out, human bodies age etc. etc.
If a wound up clock is running down, then someone must have wound it up. Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow likens the universe to such a wound up clock. (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York, Norton, 1978, 48)
Arthur Eddington understands all to well the implications of this and anyone who would attempt to refute the Second Law when he states:
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." (Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World 1928, chapter 4)
2. The universe is expanding. The recent discoveries categorized in the "Big Bang" show us that the universe is expanding. Astronomer Edwin Hubble confirmed what astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher had been researching in the early 1900's. That space itself is expanding is a scientifically proven fact confirmed by atheist British author Anthony Kenny. He wrote: " According to the Big Bang Theory, the whole matter of the universe began to exist at a particular time in the remote past. A proponent of such a theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing. (Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proofs of God's Existence, New York: Shocken, 1969, 66)
3. Radiation from the afterglow of the explosion of the Big Bang was detected in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs in New Jersey. This is technically called cosmic background radiation.
Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow states: "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16)
4. Variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation which enable matter to come together by gravitational attraction into galaxies was discovered by COBE, a satellite that in 1992 startled the scientific world by showing that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. Any slight variation one way or the other, and none of us would be here to tell about it. In fact, the ripples are so exact (down to one part in one hundred thousand) that astronomer George Smoot called them the "machining marks from the creation of the universe" and the "finger-prints of the maker."(Heeren, Show Me God, 168)
Stephen Hawking says of this discovery that it is: "the most important discovery of the century, if not all time."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)
George Smoot again states with regards to these findings: "If you're religious, it's like looking at God."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)
Astrophysicist Michael Turner claims: "The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)
The infrared pictures taken by COBE point to the existence of matter from the very early universe that would ultimately form into the galaxies as they exist today. Smoot called this matter "seeds". Pictures of these Galaxy Seeds can be found at COBE's website: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/
These "seeds" are the largest structures ever detected, with the biggest extending across 1/3 of the known universe. That is approximately 10,000,000,000 light years across!
5. Einstein's General Relativity has been verified to an accuracy of five decimal places. General Relativity demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter and shows that the three are co-relative.
From atheistic physicist Stephen Hawking:
"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." (The Beginning of Time Lecture, Stephen Hawking British Theoretical Physicist and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.)
From agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow:
"Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces." ( Excerpt from Truth Journal by Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College)
"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago."( Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University)
"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." (CalTech)
"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." (Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University)
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." (Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan)
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." (Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan)
"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." (University of Illinois)
"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." (Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University)
"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." (Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University)
"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." (Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles)
"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." (Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University)
"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." (Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama)
From the above, we see that there is ample evidence to maintain that premise 2 of the cosmological argument is true.
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Consider how you have described this "cause" -- supernatural, immaterial, without space and without time. These properties do not belong to any other thing that we call a cause.
Suppose I tell you that there is some world "beyond" this one. I tell you that this world is astonishingly and unimaginably different to our own. So different that you could be immortal in this other world. "Sounds great. How do I get there?" you ask me. Well, I reply, you must do whatever I tell you to do. That is religion in a nutshell.
I see your qualm is with religion. I have many qualms with it too!
Tell me, do you have any qualms with Jesus Christ? He is about as far removed from religion as anyone I can think of. In fact, it was the religious leaders of His day whom He rebuked the most!
Seems like a Person we can both agree with, at least on that point, no?
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that a cause can possess the properties you claim God possesses and remain a "cause". For my part, I think it's abundantly clear that no cause is radically unlike its effect. When the cue hits the billiard ball, sending it down the table, the cause-effect occurred in space and time and with material objects. Your cause possesses none of these properties, and yet you still want to call it a cause? As I said earlier, you want to leverage the meaning of the word while ignoring the context it which it finds meaning. This is why your argument from causality breaks down. It takes a common concept out of the environment where it is useful. It therefore ceases to function. "The engine is idling", as Wittgenstein might say.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Bad wording on my part; I should have emphasised the "in some form" bit. It is plausible, for example, that the universe we know today, which most certainly had a beginning, sprang from a singularity that formed from the collapse of an earlier universe, which in turn also formed from another singularity that resulted from the collapse of an ever earlier universe, and so on. But as I said, we ultimately don't know (at least not yet).
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Sorry, Archaeopteryx, this highly speculative and imaginitive theory has already been shown to be implausible. I have already dealt in earlier posts with why the various Oscillating Models of the universe werer abandoned in the 1970's. This was mainly due to Penrose and Hawking's singularity theorems.
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
You think that is "highly speculative and imaginative", but that the notion of a supernatural cause isn't? That's ironic.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Elioenai26 is under the mistaken assumption that only one model of an oscillating universe has ever been proposed. I'm guessing that he doesn't keep up with recent cosmology.
Loop quantum gravity could unite physics and take us back to the Big Bang
What was Before the Big Bang? An Identical, Reversed Universe
http://www.universetoday.com/79750/penrose-wmap-shows-evidence-of-‘activity’-before-big-bang/
eudaimonia,
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
