Near perfect existence

[anonymous person]

How are "matter" and "material" being defined here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well for our discussion, if we can agree that matter is that which has mass and takes up space (common usage) and that material is that which consists of matter (adjective), we will be well on our way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let me start by addressing what we both agree with. We both agree that God could just as easily relay the message in the present day. On this we agree.

So why does He not do that? Well the question posed assumes He doesn't. If you do not think God exists then obviously to me at least, you cannot say that He has failed to do something. For one must exist first in order for it be rightly said of them that they have failed to do a certain thing.

So I think that before we discuss this specific topic, we would first need to determine whether the preponderance of evidence gives us an indication that the God in question exists. Unless of course, you desire for us to assume for the sake of discussion that God does exist. Assuming this, I would ask you for your reasons for maintaining that God is not presently relaying His message of salvation in none other than Christ.

Yea...let's assume for the sake of the conversation that he exists.

Why do I think he's not relaying his message? That should be rather obvious. There's no more reason to believe in christianity than any other religion. Assuming god is the christian god, how clear is this message? How many denominations are there? Which, if any, are correct?

 

[Ana the Ist]

We both seem to agree that the preponderance of evidence indicates that all matter in the universe came into existence at the big bang.

This points us to a cause that is not material, as you rightly reason.

Why would that point us to a non-material "cause"?

Also I fixed your statement so that it's more accurate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Would not Einstein's discovery of the interconnectedness of mass and energy be problematic for your hypothesis? If we posit that all matter and energy and space-time itself came into existence a finite time ago, and we assume that matter is any substance which has rest mass and takes up space, and we assume that space does not exist sans time, (as Einstein's work seems to indicate) it seems to me that your hypothesis, in light of the aforementioned, would be less preferable to one which does not require that we maintain that matter and energy exist atemporally.

Your thoughts?

Define "came into existence."

 

[anonymous person]

Define "came into existence."

the universe was not, then was.

If we can agree on this, then I think we shall be well on our way.

 

[anonymous person]

Why would that point us to a non-material "cause"?

Also I fixed your statement so that it's more accurate.

Ahhh, my lady, indeed you have fixed it.

I thought, maybe erroneously, that the word universe as part of its signification, signified all matter....?

If I was wrong, please pardon me.

My lady, I may also have been wrong in thinking that matter, which was not, had the ability to cause itself to be....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ahhh, my lady, indeed you have fixed it.

I thought, maybe erroneously, that the word universe as part of its signification, signified all matter....?

If I was wrong, please pardon me.

My lady, I may also have been wrong in thinking that matter, which was not, had the ability to cause itself to be....

What's this "my lady" stuff? I'm a guy.

All that universe refers to is everything created in the big bang...whether or not there's more out there, we don't know.

Also, matter which was not what?

 

[anonymous person]

What's this "my lady" stuff? I'm a guy.

Forgive me sir, for thinking that someone with the name of "Ana" was a woman. Surely you could understand why I might think that.... no?

All that universe refers to is everything created in the big bang...whether or not there's more out there, we don't know.

I think we can infer that if all matter came into existence in the big bang, then that which gave rise to it could not have consisted of matter, for to maintain that something consisting of matter could cause matter to come into being would land you in a position of having to argue for a view that seems to me to be less preferable than one which does not require us to believe that matter could cause itself to come into being.

Also, matter which was not what?

Not in existence.

 

[anonymous person]

Define "came into existence."

To say that the universe came into existence is to say that it came to be.

IOW, it was not, then was.

 

[Davian]

We both seem to agree that the preponderance of evidence indicates that all matter came into existence at the big bang.

Do you then accept, for the most part, big bang cosmology and all that that entails (a 13.7 billion year-old cosmos, a 4 billion-year-old Earth, etc)?

This points us to a cause that is not material, as you rightly reason.

If it is not material, what is it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Forgive me sir, for thinking that someone with the name of "Ana" was a woman. Surely you could understand why I might think that.... no?



I think we can infer that if all matter came into existence in the big bang, then that which gave rise to it could not have consisted of matter, for to maintain that something consisting of matter could cause matter to come into being would land you in a position of having to argue for a view that seems to me to be less preferable than one which does not require us to believe that matter could cause itself to come into being.



Not in existence.

One of the things that seems to cause confusion amongst the religious is the way science describes the big bang. It gets described as the creation of all matter, space, and time...so naturally, religious folk seem to conclude that these things don't exist "outside" of our universe.

The thing is though, that we can only describe what's "inside" our universe since that's all we currently have access to. So when science says the big bang created all matter, space, and time...they are referring to "inside" our universe...not outside.

The reality is, they have no idea what exists outside of our universe. There could be matter and energy, space, and time...we simply don't know.

So to jump to the conclusion that whatever "caused" the big bang (if indeed it needed a cause) cannot be made of matter, take up space, or exist "in time" is erroneous. It assumes a lot of things about what exists outside of the universe that science does not assume.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[anonymous person]

Do you then accept, for the most part, big bang cosmology and all that that entails (a 13.7 billion year-old cosmos, a 4 billion-year-old Earth, etc)?

Yes.

If it is not material, what is it?

Not material = immaterial

Immaterial= from Medieval Latin immaterialis "not consisting of matter, spiritual," from assimilated form of in- "not, opposite of"

 

[quatona]

Yes.



Not material = immaterial

Immaterial= from Medieval Latin immaterialis "not consisting of matter, spiritual," from assimilated form of in- "not, opposite of"

You keep telling us what it does not consist of. The question, however, was "What does it consist of."
("I don´t know" would be a legitimate answer.)

 

[Davian]

Yes.

And how long ago do you feel that the process of life first appeared on Earth?

Not material = immaterial

Immaterial= from Medieval Latin immaterialis "not consisting of matter, spiritual," from assimilated form of in- "not, opposite of"

By that, the non-existent is also immaterial.

Can you do other than tell us what it is not?

 

[anonymous person]

You keep telling us what it does not consist of. The question, however, was "What does it consist of."
("I don´t know" would be a legitimate answer.)

Actually, the question was:

If it is not material, what is it?

The question you ask assumes that that which is immaterial consists of something. But why think that that which is immaterial or incorporeal consists of anything?

Rather, I think I would say that the immaterial cause of the universe is a spiritual being which possesses certain attributes.

 

[anonymous person]

And how long ago do you feel that the process of life first appeared on Earth?

I do not know, nor am I willing to take a guess until I study the issue more in depth.

By that, the non-existent is also immaterial.

Correct. That which does not exist cannot consist of matter.

Can you do other than tell us what it is not?

Sure.

 

[anonymous person]

One of the things that seems to cause confusion amongst the religious is the way science describes the big bang. It gets described as the creation of all matter, space, and time...so naturally, religious folk seem to conclude that these things don't exist "outside" of our universe.

The thing is though, that we can only describe what's "inside" our universe since that's all we currently have access to. So when science says the big bang created all matter, space, and time...they are referring to "inside" our universe...not outside.

The reality is, they have no idea what exists outside of our universe. There could be matter and energy, space, and time...we simply don't know.

So to jump to the conclusion that whatever "caused" the big bang (if indeed it needed a cause) cannot be made of matter, take up space, or exist "in time" is erroneous. It assumes a lot of things about what exists outside of the universe that science does not assume.

Does that make sense to you?

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree. Of course I will give you my reasons.

Basically, it seems to me that you want to allow for the existence of matter and space and energy outside of our universe, despite the empirical evidence and data we have which would seem to render this view problematic. This hypothesis seems less preferable to one which would not require us to set aside the empirical evidence and data from the observations we have gathered which seem to indicate that there is no matter or energy or space-time external to our universe.

As one who thinks it would be intellectually dishonest to just disregard the empirical evidence and observational data we have from the cosmological disciplines, I have to take what they seem to indicate into account when attempting to develop a comprehensive weltanschauung.

I also think you are wrong when you argue that what I am arguing for is something that only religious people would do. I can give you references to brilliant men who are not religious who would argue that the coming into being of the cosmos would seem to indicate that it was the result of something which transcends the cosmos. You must remember, there are many theists who are not religious.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes.



Not material = immaterial

Immaterial= from Medieval Latin immaterialis "not consisting of matter, spiritual," from assimilated form of in- "not, opposite of"

I'd be interested to hear what you think of this YouTube video showing how the Big Bang never happened.

Let me know what you think

 

[Davian]

I do not know, nor am I willing to take a guess until I study the issue more in depth.

Is a date of over 3 billion years ago incompatible with your theology?

Correct. That which does not exist cannot consist of matter.

Indeed. Hence my asking of you if you can do other than tell us what it is not. How do we delineate the "immaterial" from the non-existent?

Sure.

<looks for something of significance, sees nothing>

Is that a 'no'?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree. Of course I will give you my reasons.

Basically, it seems to me that you want to allow for the existence of matter and space and energy outside of our universe, despite the empirical evidence and data we have which would seem to render this view problematic. This hypothesis seems less preferable to one which would not require us to set aside the empirical evidence and data from the observations we have gathered which seem to indicate that there is no matter or energy or space-time external to our universe.

What empirical evidence and observational data? I wasn't aware there was any of this regarding what's external to our universe.