Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Intelligences don't just pop out of no where either. Intelligence is complex. So your intelligent designer requires his own designer.
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.
Explain how an inanimate force or object could give rise to something with the complexity of the universe. It's something that doesn't happen in reality and which we have no good reason to assume would happen with the universe. For example, cars don't make themselves, they require intelligence in order to design, and so on.
A further problem is that he is not applying the "rules of the universe" consistently anyway. As far as we know, creatio ex nihilo is not a "rule of the universe," yet it's the doctrine he is committed to.
If you can just SAY, in a debate, that God is eternal and uncreated, then you should be able to just SAY the same about the universe, without any rhetorical penalty.
Exactly, there's no certainty that the big bang represents the beginning of the universe in some absolute sense.The usual counterpoint is that cosmology says that the universe began some finite time ago, so the universe could not have existed eternally. I'm not an astrophysicist, but I think this is mistaken. The Big Bang tells us that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but what happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is unknown to us. The universe may have always existed in some form.
The Big Bang tells us that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but what happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is unknown to us. The universe may have always existed in some form.
Not necessarily. The universe, as well as the cosmos, could be eternal.Again, most are continuing to use universe when they mean cosmos.
The usual counterpoint is that cosmology says that the universe began some finite time ago, so the universe could not have existed eternally. I'm not an astrophysicist, but I think this is mistaken. The Big Bang tells us that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but what happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is unknown to us. The universe may have always existed in some form.
It was actually all you have. You don't know that the creation of the cosmos required intelligence, do you? Just speculation.
How did you determine and measure that? What units did you use?
Define "God", so we can examine that question.
Wild speculation. You do not know, do you?
Well, you don't really "know" very much at all. You can only be reasonably sure. So, for example, when we see a car or airplane we're reasonably sure that it took intelligence to create them. Likewise, when we see the universe, we can also be reasonably sure of the same thing. Exactly how is that idea faulty?
I certainly wouldn't call it "speculation."
"Why would that make my line of reasoning unlikely?"
I don't really need to explain this to you, do I? You understand why your argument fails... the first premise is wrong for at least two reasons...maybe more if I gave it some real thought. If your first premise is false, and the rest of your argument rests upon that premise, then the entire argument is wrong. Remember your first premise was this...
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Well...now you know that not everything that begins to exist has a cause. There are at least some things which begin to exist without any discernable cause. To account for this new information, we could change your first premise to something like this...
1. Most things that begin to exist have a cause.
Or even...
1. Nearly everything that begins to exist has a cause.
If we changed your first premise to one of these so that we can call it true, does the rest of the argument hold up? Of course not... because now the first premise allows for the universe to be one of those very few things that began to exist without a cause. You would need to prove that the universe is one of those things that begins to exist and has a cause... but your argument doesn't do that.
To illustrate the logical flaw in your first premise (because I'm not sure you understood it when I explained that the universe is a set and the "rules of its members don't necessarily apply to it)
take a look at this statement you made a few pages back...
"Your understanding of how things work in this universe (sequences of thoughts and so on) doesn't necessarily apply beyond this universe!"
Your first premise is based upon the way things appear to work inside the universe. Well, the universe is not inside itself, is it? So the rules that appear to govern the way things work inside the universe don't necessarily apply to the universe itself.
"Did the universe begin to exist, or not? Did time have a beginning?"
Those are both good questions... and I don't know the answer to either of them. There was quite a bit of noise this year about some evidence that perhaps the universe has always existed in some form or another. I don't think anyone can say that theory is proven, but it certainly appears to be a genuine possibility. Maybe you heard about this? If not, I'll be happy to provide a link or two.
"The idea of being outside of time isn't meaningless at all. Perhaps we can't understand it..."
What exactly do you think the term "meaningless" means? When I asked you to tell me what it means to be outside of time... you told me you don't know what it means. How can you know then that something can exist "outside of time"? You don't even know what it means.
Because we know cars and airplanes are things we create. The only criteria we have by which we know something to be created is experience. We do not have any such experience with the universe. Hence you are trying to claim something which requires knowledge you do not posses. That would be the very definition of speculation.
Tell me, what other phenomena or aspects of the universe do you attribute to the supernatural? Are hurricanes or tornados supernatural events, or are they natural occurrences governed by natural laws?
If I could explain that, I think I'd win a Nobel Prize.
How much time have you spent outside of the universe, that you can say with certainty that there aren't universes bursting into existence at all times?
Right. And cars are not anything like a universe so, your analogy doesn't work. You would need to compare the universe to, well, another universe to make an adequate comparison.
So what evidence is there of anything you are claiming is necessary, and how did you examine this evidence ?
No, because 'God' is typically conceived of as a person. The Divine Flame is not. It's a flame. It has no consciousness, no personality, no intentions. It doesn't demand your worship, won't listen to your prayers, and is indifferent to humanity.
I already gave you another explanation: the Divine Flame. Explain how your explanation is more likely than mine.
Intelligences don't just pop out of no where either. Intelligence is complex. So your intelligent designer requires his own designer.
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?