P
pantless rationalist
Guest
If a god can be eternal, why not matter and energy? That's really all the universe would need to be created, so why can these two things not be the "uncaused cause".
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.
If a god can be eternal, why not matter and energy? That's really all the universe would need to be created, so why can these two things not be the "uncaused cause".Everything is moved, but cannot be only circular.
Therefore, there must be a mover - an uncaused cause.
It is a logical conclusion when examines the alternative.
No, the second step would be to attempt to ascertain the nature of God from what is known to us.And I suppose the second step is to conclude irrational things about God and believe everything the Catholic Church tells you?
But i suppose i'll have to wait for the 2nd lesson for that.
great questionIf a god can be eternal, why not matter and energy? That's really all the universe would need to be created, so why can these two things not be the "uncaused cause".
Perhaps I am offering an incomplete look, but I assumed you would all be objecting to copy/paste, so I paraphrase.You can not, however, do so with the argument you have proffered thus far.
Sound means the argument is true and valid.Their arguments were notably more sophisticated than yours. There are multiple ways to construct a valid cosmological argument, but none that I consider sound.
Noted.It is worth noting here that 'big bang' cosmology does not commit us to a "beginning of all things."
The self-contradiction is so obvious that it hurts.Everything is moved, but cannot be only circular.
Therefore, there must be a mover - an uncaused cause.
It is a logical conclusion when examines the alternative.
Matter and energy require something acting upon it to do things.If a god can be eternal, why not matter and energy? That's really all the universe would need to be created, so why can these two things not be the "uncaused cause".
The fact that you call it a he says enough.No, the second step would be to attempt to ascertain the nature of God from what is known to us.
We can determine He is immovable, eternal, necessarily exists, everlasting, has no succession, is simple, is His own essence, is not a genus, is united, is not a body, has infinite power, and more, but I suppose i have already said enough for you to object to.
We can say there is a Thing that cannot be moved - but by Itself.The self-contradiction is so obvious that it hurts.
If there can/must be uncaused causes the premise that "everything is moved" is inaccurate.
Does everything need to be caused? If so, there can´t be an uncaused cause. If not so, the problem you are trying to solve by introducing a "god" doesn´t even exist.
So our existence has simply always existed?I don't understand the question.
We exist. Period.
You assume that the "worker" must be some anthropomorphic entity, which is not true. Chemical reactions occur without this kind of "worker" intervention all the time (the formation of stars, for instance).Matter and energy require something acting upon it to do things.
Energy is the ability to do work, so lacking in energy is the worker.
Matter is what work is done on, so again lacking is the worker.
Maybe it works a little better that way, but it still has plenty of holes.
Of course, the first thing I´d ask for would be a definition of "natural".
We don´t have a problem defining god into existence, mind you. I just have to prove that there is a monitor on my desk and then say "and we call this monitor god" and - poof - atheism and agnosticism are refuted.
Sure you can make a lot of statements and assumptions. But an assumption does not an argument make.We can say there is a Thing that cannot be moved - but by Itself.
Define "natural".Also, as noted, perhaps it is better to say all that is natural is moved.
So your definition of "natural" is "everything that can be or not be" (as opposed to "necessarily is", I guess)?Everything that can be or not be is affected by cause or change, ie, everything natural.
While this would make your argument more consistent, it begs the question for the existence of the supernaturalEverything that can be or not be is affected by cause or change, ie, everything natural.
"God," is merely a name; to continue past that would get into determining Its nature.I'm certainly not claiming that I feel that I have to be absolutely certain about anything; I acknowledge that it is indeed possible for a deity to exist but I'd need much more evidence and solid definition of the god for which you're arguing. If you're arguing for a first-cause deistic god that doesn't interfere, then it seems fairly unfalsifiable and is at best based on definitions ("whatever the first cause was, I'll define it as "God.""). If you want to call the first cause "God" then it's merely a name; even if there is a specific first cause that caused everything else, I can't see how that is necessarily supernatural (and the whole idea of my position is that I don't believe in the supernatural).
To cause the natural.While this would make your argument more consistent, it begs the question for the existence of the supernatural
Maybe impossible to know for sure; but if God wanted us to be able to say with absolute certainty that He exists, wouldn't that eliminate any choice we have in the matter?Hey Nathan,
interesting post, but I´d like to stay focussed for the time being if you don´t mind.
The OP asked why someone would say that the existence of god is unknowable. I gave a couple of reasons, and in response to them you explain how the arguments presented for the existence of god are based on the unknowable and impossible to answer.
Well, in order for matter and energy to exist time must exist to order the reaction, space must exist to allow the reactions to happen, and the matter and energy must be "pushed" in some way to react with each other.You assume that the "worker" must be some anthropomorphic entity, which is not true. Chemical reactions occur without this kind of "worker" intervention all the time (the formation of stars, for instance).
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?