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.
sir, if we have intelligence in the universe, does that not follow that the first cause, would have to have intelligence as well?
Conversely, he has also said that because we have "Time" inside the universe, that must mean that the creator does not have "Time" (is timeless, eternal, etc...) I already pointed that out, and was promptly ignored. That was even way back when I was still being nice.The implication of this line of argument is that if it's a feature of the universe, it must be a feature of the 'first cause'. So in order to be consistent with that, you would have to answer 'yes' to all of these,
If we have stupidity in the universe, does that not follow that the first cause would have to have stupidity as well?
If we have gravitational pull in the universe, does that not follow that the first cause would have to have gravitational pull as well?
If we have spicy chicken wings in the universe, does that not follow that the first cause would have to have spicy chicken wings as well?
If we have iron sulfide in the universe, does that not follow that the first cause would have to have iron sulfide as well?
If we have elephant dung in the universe, does that not follow that the first cause would have to have elephant dung as well?
And so forth.
Add it to the list of words he doesn't know. Maybe it'd be easier to make list of the ones he does know.I can’t help what you view as an attack, but I’m factually telling you the way you use the word “logical” is not correct. It’s not entirely idiosyncratic, but it’s not effective in the way you think it is.
Actually, my reasoning for it is purely philosophical. Imagine God created our universe, including space and time. Since He is outside space and time, He can see all the moments in our time at once, right? And if He isn't planning on destroying it all at some point in time, there's no end to time. Which means that this "ball" of our universe is infinite in size, isn't it? I think you need to imagine the universe as a four-dimensional cube, like you said, to even think about a universe with a god that is "outside" of it.
I tend to doubt that. Intelligence comes from the ability to process information. Storing data and processing it is something that could conceivably develop through electrochemical processes. A better argument to me is the consciousness. Where does that come from? Perhaps an outside source.
See that's what I'm thinking about when I imagine a universe coming into being with B-Theory. If the whole thing and all of the "time" is wiped out the instant it's destroyed, then the whole thing and all of the "time" comes into being at the instant it's created. From inside it looks like there's a point one, but there isn't really from the outside. I just don't see how a point 1 can be significant in B-Theory. It wouldn't be any more significant than the last point if the universe is destroyed.Well, we're begging the question of whether a negative temporal infinity is actually possible on any theory of time. I'm not sure that's possible to determine without first being able to define time in a meaningful way, which is a pretty serious problem. If the very nature of a temporal universe means that is impossible to create one without also creating a Point 1, then God would obviously have created it with a first moment.
I don't think there are obvious theological answers here. Even drawing from Christian revelation, there are really two options: this universe will be renewed and transformed in some way, or the promised world to come will be an entirely new universe. I favor the second view, so I think this universe will at some point cease to exist. (Of course, on a B theory, that's really hard to conceptualize, since ceasing to exist would mean that the whole temporal sequence is wiped out, not simply that there's a moment after which there are no more moments. Perhaps this is a problem for the B theory, and perhaps not.)
See that's what I'm thinking about when I imagine a universe coming into being with B-Theory. If the whole thing and all of the "time" is wiped out the instant it's destroyed, then the whole thing and all of the "time" comes into being at the instant it's created. From inside it looks like there's a point one, but there isn't really from the outside. I just don't see how a point 1 can be significant in B-Theory. It wouldn't be any more significant than the last point if the universe is destroyed.
Well for one thing there are no half way eyes in the fossil record. There are eyes with different designs for detecting different things and ways of detecting light. Some are designed for more detail and some for less. And there are some eyes that have degraded over time like the cavefish eyes but a half way eye would be useless, therefore it is very unlikely that natural selection could produce eyes.My eyes see.
Now try and say that they “had” to be designed by an intelligence, because eyes have a purpose, and purposes have to come from a mind.
Dare ya...
I didn't say anything about happiness. Some atheists seem fairly happy and some dont. The characteristic I have noticed that appears to be more widespread among atheists is anger, especially when talking to Christians about God.I suppose some people need to think that atheists are secretly unhappy, as the idea of their happiness somehow makes them more happy.
Oooooo, I smell research paper...
I think it is. If there are pixies that can create universes, it's logical to say that ours was created by them. That doesn't mean any sane person would actually propose that theory, but it's not a violation of any laws of logic.No, sir it's not logical.
What is a “halfway eye?” As you say, different animals have different levels of eyesight. Some can even see light frequencies that we can’t. As far as I’m concerned any animal’s eye along the spectrum between totally blind and all-seeing could be considered a halfway-eye.Well for one thing there are no half way eyes in the fossil record. There are eyes with different designs for detecting different things and ways of detecting light. Some are designed for more detail and some for less. And there are some eyes that have degraded over time like the cavefish eyes but a half way eye would be useless, therefore it is very unlikely that natural selection could produce eyes.
Hmmm... A book seems like a good analogy. But I want to point out that I wasn't saying there's no distinction between the pages, I was saying that any one given page isn't more significant than another. I can imagine a book that has infinite pages in it. So you couldn't look back to a "beginning" page or an "end" page, but all of the moments exist. You wouldn't have to "wait" for a page to exist, which was the original problem I was asking about.I personally view it as something analogous to a novel--it doesn't matter if you're on page 1 or page 500, if you've finished it or haven't begun it yet. The pages are always there, the whole story is present from beginning to end. Nothing ever ceases to exist.
That doesn't mean that there's no distinction between page 1 and page 500, though. The book still begins somewhere, and ends somewhere. The fact that there's a beginning and an end isn't an illusion, just the sensation that things are passing into and out of being. The first couple pages are as "real" as the last ones.
Whether a book is precisely the right analogy is a separate question, since theoretically you could get really postmodern and write a book backwards, where the end is the beginning and the whole story runs backwards. Arguing that time in physical reality is not unidirectional is going to be a lot harder, even on a B Theory.
Unproven claim, based simply on your own opinion.Over time they can convince themselves that they truly believe that. But initially that is not the case.
Jolly good. All you have to do, then, is publish a paper proving that evolution is impossible. Looking forward to it.Because almost all beneficial mutations that allow for the small changes over time result in a net loss of genetic information so that eventually there is no more significant genetic information to bring about the large changes needed for macroevolution.
Actually, I meant that you saying "God's goal was to make it habitable for humans using primarily natural law" is an unfounded claim, which can therefore be dismissed.The anthropic principle is a VERY well founded claim. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I can’t help what you view as an attack, but I’m factually telling you the way you use the word “logical” is not correct. It’s not entirely idiosyncratic, but it’s not effective in the way you think it is.
"It’s logical to say universe-creating pixies made the universe"
this is a lack of something, a void, so no the creator would not have this, next one...The implication of this line of argument is that if it's a feature of the universe, it must be a feature of the 'first cause'. So in order to be consistent with that, you would have to answer 'yes' to all of these,
If we have stupidity in the universe, does it not follow that the first cause would have to have stupidity as well?
this is not a positive character trait, but a creator must have the ability to create gravity.If we have gravitational pull in the universe, does it not follow that the first cause would have to have gravitational pull as well?
again this does not follow what was said, so this commits the fallacy of non sequitur. And again, the creator would have to have the ability to create spicy chicken wings, and all the ingredients of it.If we have spicy chicken wings in the universe, does it not follow that the first cause would have to have spicy chicken wings as well?
fallacy, the creator would have the ability to create this.If we have iron sulfide in the universe, does it not follow that the first cause would have to have iron sulfide as well?
same replyIf we have elephant dung in the universe, does it not follow that the first cause would have to have elephant dung as well?
your post does not logically follow. Intelligence is not elephant dung but a positive character trait in the universe. elephant dung is the result of other natural processes, the ability to rationalize is obviously not the product of random chance, an electrocuted mud puddle all of a sudden quoting poetry and pontificating philosophy. It simply is irrational.And so forth.
The confusion is coming from the multiple usages of the word "logical" that are at play here. The way you're using it seems to be synonymous with "rationally believable" whereas the way I used it in this context meant "doesn't commit any logical fallacies." Of course it's not rationally believable that universe-creating pixies created the universe, but there's no fallacy there. It's just an unsupported claim.well the burden of proof lies on you, to prove that this statement is true:
I await your response.
I don't think you fully understand the implications of logic, and that is ok. I am not insulting you over it, just beware of it.
The confusion is coming from the multiple usages of the word "logical" that are at play here. The way you're using it seems to be synonymous with "rationally believable" whereas the way I used it in this context meant "doesn't commit any logical fallacies." Of course it's not rationally believable that universe-creating pixies created the universe, but there's no fallacy there. It's just an unsupported claim.
I assume you would eventually agree that it was false, I was just waiting for you to finally admit it. And you won't which is funny, because you are angry at me for never admitting defeat when you do the same exact thing. The problem with admitting defeat is that people will use it against you and say "you have made errors before." So I learned years ago, that people don't want you to lose, they want to rub it in your face. Which is not honest."It’s logical to say universe-creating pixies made the universe"
I never said that it was true, just that as a statement it didn’t contain any logical fallacies. I doubt that it’s true very seriously for the same reason I doubt your God is the creator of the universe: there’s no evidence.so I am waiting for that statement to be proven true.
I assume you would eventually agree that it was false, I was just waiting for you to finally admit it. And you won't which is funny, because you are angry at me for never admitting defeat when you do the same exact thing. The problem with admitting defeat is that people will use it against you and say "you have made errors before." So I learned years ago, that people don't want you to lose, they want to rub it in your face. Which is not honest.
your post does not logically follow.
Intelligence is not elephant dung but a positive character trait in the universe.
the ability to rationalize is obviously not the product of random chance, an electrocuted mud puddle all of a sudden quoting poetry and pontificating philosophy. It simply is irrational.
I never said that it was true, just that as a statement it didn’t contain any logical fallacies. I doubt that it’s true very seriously for the same reason I doubt your God is the creator of the universe: there’s no evidence.
I don’t know what you’re rambling about with this winning vs losing thing, I just hope you understand better now.
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?