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.
I've heard this argument before(for the existence of God), and must say it is a logical fallacy.Now supposing that immortal angels exist, just for the sake of our experiment, do you think that this angel can be telling the truth? The question the thought experiment raises is this: if the universe were infinitely old - or, if you prefer, there is an infinite regress of causes - how is it that we come to arrive at now? Does this thought experiment demonstrate that infinite regresses and infinite age are absurd?
This is just a guess, but probably for the same reasons you don't believe, or fail to understand the plausibility of existance of fairies or leprechauns.What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?
I have never really been certain as to what science teaches on origin.Origin. Nothing is provable, though I must admit I feel science has the upper hand as far as that goes.
Why would a rational God create a thing if He did not want be known by it?Why would I have to conclude that?
That's fair. I would contend though, that while origin is indeed beyond absolute comprehension, it can be explained.No and not really. I don't care to try to pretend to understand things that are really not understandable.
That's true, he does. I'm not sure how coherent such an explanation can be, however.
There are many forms of this thought experiment, but here is my favourite:Suppose you go into a coffee shop, and as you are sitting down with your Fair Trade mocha, you notice an old man in the corner, quietly counting backwards. As you sit down, he says, "73, 72, 71..." and you continue to surreptitiously listen, slurping your coffee, until he says, "3, 2, 1," and sits back with an air of great satisfaction.Now supposing that immortal angels exist, just for the sake of our experiment, do you think that this angel can be telling the truth? The question the thought experiment raises is this: if the universe were infinitely old - or, if you prefer, there is an infinite regress of causes - how is it that we come to arrive at now? Does this thought experiment demonstrate that infinite regresses and infinite age are absurd?
Burning with curiosity, you lean over, and ask him, "Why were you counting just now?"
"I am an angel," he replies, "and I have been counting backwards from infinity since the beginning of time."
"And you've just got to zero?" you ask.
"That's right," he says, and getting up, he heads over to the newspaper rack and selects a copy of The Guardian.
This is thrown around a lot, but just going off of the responses in this thread, even atheists and agnostics would not argue that God is an unreasonable conclusion.This is just a guess, but probably for the same reasons you don't believe, or fail to understand the plausibility of existance of fairies or leprechauns.
A rational and logical being, I suppose the only current example on this planet are humans. And rather than being objectively rational or logical, I suppose the definition of the beings implied is the ability to use logic and reason.I need some clarification: What is a "rational being"? What is a "logical being"? Must examples of those two categories always be rational or logical?
But knowledge of whence existence came would help explain to where existence is headed, or its purpose.It is not lack of desire so much as lack of relevance.
You are being completely fair.No, I'm saying that the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" argument only proves, at most, the existence of a creating being whose existence is necessary.
You are welcome to make further arguments for other proposed qualities, but she will not get them solely via that form of the cosmological argument.
Of course not, by the virtue of the universe being so rational and ordered I would contend it implies that God would be a rational and ordered being. So, we can explain the universe because God created it rationally.From the Big Bang to now, I see no need to posit the existence of God. After the Big Bang, everything is explained or conceivably explicable.
As is much of the object of philosophy.The reason that the cosmological argument is more effective than most is that it talks about something which is outside the realms of our experience, and, further, outside of the scientific discipline (at least as we understand it today). As soon as you get the creation or beginning event out of the way, science can get going with explanations.
I have never really been certain as to what science teaches on origin.
I personally believe origin to be more a matter of philosophy then science.
Lots of reasons. We're a science project, a biological/social experiment, it's simply not the way it was planned, etc... If God somehow has to reveal him/herself to us then why do it through a book instead of directly face-to-face? Why do it so cryptically? So many questions...Why would a rational God create a thing if He did not want be known by it?
No, I don't think it can. And until it can, I don't intend to try to turn speculation into absolute truth.That's fair. I would contend though, that while origin is indeed beyond absolute comprehension, it can be explained.
I also believe knowing from whence existence came is worthy of care because it would help us to discern the purpose of existence.
And you have this knowledge, do you?But knowledge of whence existence came would help explain to where existence is headed, or its purpose.
I would argue that your God is an unreasonable conclusion.This is thrown around a lot, but just going off of the responses in this thread, even atheists and agnostics would not argue that God is an unreasonable conclusion.
Which god? What do you mean - "god"?What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?
It's probably thrown around a lot because that's how some view it. I do at least. I haven't read the thread but the latter part of your statement has me confused. Nothing is more unreasonable that a personal monotheistic deity from where I sit.This is thrown around a lot, but just going off of the responses in this thread, even atheists and agnostics would not argue that God is an unreasonable conclusion.
I have no idea how this quesstion makes any sense nor what a satisfactory answer could look like. In particular, I don´t seem to understand how "god" helps explaining why there´s something and not nothing.Fair enough, but as a follow-up(I don't intend to smack you with the Bible, but have a discussion based on reason) what is your theory as to metaphysics, ie, why there is something and not nothing(for all who have replied and will)?
That pretty much depends on the god concept in question, as well as on the reasoning that is presented.This is thrown around a lot, but just going off of the responses in this thread, even atheists and agnostics would not argue that God is an unreasonable conclusion.
Why would we be a science project for a Being that would inherently know the result of the experiment, by virtue of being omnipowerful(by virtue of It creating existence).Lots of reasons. We're a science project, a biological/social experiment, it's simply not the way it was planned, etc... If God somehow has to reveal him/herself to us then why do it through a book instead of directly face-to-face? Why do it so cryptically? So many questions...
I am not asking you too, just trying to discuss views on the origin of existence.No, I don't think it can. And until it can, I don't intend to try to turn speculation into absolute truth.
Everything in existence is moved by another thing.This process, however, cannot be infinite; there has to be a first mover. Because everything moved is a sort of instrument of the first Mover. Therefore, if there is no first Mover, then all things that move will be instruments. In an infinite series of moves, there is not first mover. In that case, these infinite mover and things will all be instruments. But instruments cannot be moved without a principal mover. It's like a saw cutting a piece of wood by itself. There must be a first mover above all the rest; this being we call God.I have no idea how this quesstion makes any sense nor what a satisfactory answer could look like. In particular, I don´t seem to understand how "god" helps explaining why there´s something and not nothing.
I have not made that assertion, have I?And you have this knowledge, do you?
I invite you to do so.I would argue that your God is an unreasonable conclusion.
Not true, I have said this in response to two others but I present it again -It's probably thrown around a lot because that's how some view it. I do at least. I haven't read the thread but the latter part of your statement has me confused. Nothing is more unreasonable that a personal monotheistic deity from where I sit.
Says who?Everything in existence is moved by another thing.
Why not?This process, however, cannot be infinite;
Except that this assumption violates your own premise.there has to be a first mover.
You start from the premise that everything in existence needs to be moved by something else, and your conclusion is that there must be something that isn´t moved by something else.Because everything moved is a sort of instrument of the first Mover. Therefore, if there is no first Mover, then all things that move will be instruments. In an infinite series of moves, there is not first mover. In that case, these infinite mover and things will all be instruments. But instruments cannot be moved without a principal mover. It's like a saw cutting a piece of wood by itself. There must be a first mover above all the rest; this being we call God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?