• 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.

Near perfect existence

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yea.

Well sorry to inform you bud, but what you just quoted from Hume will also have to be consigned to the flames, for it neither contains abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number, nor does it contain experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence.

Way to go champ.

Yawn...it's not my rationale...

I see now that we're thoroughly done with your attempt at some sort of "cosmological argument". If you're interested in discussing Hume and metaphysics...there's plenty of other posters who I'm sure can oblige.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ok.

Like I said earlier, I view the data as clues if you will, pointing to a reality beyond the reach of science because I am not a naturalist. Naturalists will arrive at different conclusions than mine.
What data points to Goddidit?
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But rather that the universe is just part of a larger space-time regime governed by natural laws. Some people refer to this larger space-time regime as a world ensemble, of which our universe is one of an infinite number of universes.

Positing such a world ensemble is the only way you can maintain that our universe came to be as a result of natural causes.
That simply isn't true, and someone with a physics background would be expected to know that.
The problem with such a hypothesis is that there simply is no reason to think that there actually exists a world ensemble which our universe is but a part.

So unless you have evidence for such a thing, I think attempting to redefine the term "universe" is simply unwarranted.
To my understanding, the definition of "the universe" you are using, which equates the universe with the totality of physical reality, is not the definition that physicists use. By "the universe," they are simply referring to our local spacetime, which is currently in a state of ever-accelerating expansion. Again, this is something that someone with a physics background would be expected to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ana the Ist
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Would not the coming into being of the universe be evidence that there is a cause of the universe?

It seems that it would.

The universe could not have created itself.

So the evidence that the universe came into being is evidence that something brought it into being. My Chevy Silverado is evidence of an efficient cause that designed and made it.

Since all matter and energy and space time itself are the effect in question, its cause must exist outside of or transcend the universe.
Bear in mind that you are claiming the universe "came to be" in a qualitatively different way from how your Chevy Silverado "came to be." It seems you are equivocating on "came to be."
Of course the question of the origin of the universe is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Science has no say when it comes to things beyond its reach.
The question at hand - the origin of the universe - trespasses overtly on the territory of cosmology.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟182,802.00
Faith
Seeker
If for a moment and for the sake of the argument agreeing that there can´t be a material ("material" is in the matter and stuff found in the universe) cause for the universe,
and if, for arguments´sake, we accept the idea that replacing "I don´t know what it is" can be replaced by a mere ex-negativo claim ("it´s immaterial") and this counts for an "explanation":
I was just wondering what would keep us from postulating an "other-material" cause for the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
When I look at all the data I have, I think my hypothesis is preferable to its alternative i.e. that matter somehow caused itself to come into being.

Even if mindless matter could somehow choose to create something, it seems to me that it would have to exist first.
The only "minds" that I am aware of are an emergent property of a brain. Until the process of life began, and brains evolved, everything would be "mindless".

Tell me more about this hypothesis of yours that has a mind, without a brain, existing "prior" to the instantiation of the cosmos.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
God and Other Necessary Beings
First published Fri Apr 29, 2005; substantive revision Sat Dec 28, 2013

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Are we talking about the same "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
Are we talking about the same "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?
No
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
The Christian God.
So we are talking about a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

I just want to be clear on what you mean by "God".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
So we are talking about a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

I just want to be clear on what you mean by "God".

No. We are not talking about the God you describe.
 
Upvote 0