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.
That's the point I was making. Math can be used to describe just about anything, whether it's real or not...just like actual infinities that don't actually exist. You have to get your philosophy nailed down first in order to make sense of the math.Mathematics can be used to describe essentially everything.
The dragon is not omniscient, it doesn't make sense for him to know his own future.
The dragon is eternal, not timeless, he doesn't like to be in a static state.
The dragon didn't have a cause since he's eternal.
The dragon is omnipotent.
The dragon is a slave to his own freedom.
Not true. I've been attempting to rule out candidates for the cause of the universe by considering various characteristic traits that can be extrapolated out of the KCA using logic. As I stated several times, the KCA does not rule out an evil god as the cause universe.You rule out everything besides an Abrahamic god.
That's the point I was making. Math can be used to describe just about anything, whether it's real or not...just like actual infinities that don't actually exist.
Not true. I've been attempting to rule out candidates for the cause of the universe by considering various characteristic traits that can be extrapolated out of the KCA using logic. As I stated several times, the KCA does not rule out an evil god as the cause universe.
Why does it need to be omnipotent?...
I disagree with some of your logic, but I concur with some of your conclusions, so I'll concentrate on where we differ. So far, we agree that the cause is:
1. immaterial
2. omnipotent
<snip>
But some might say, as in the case of the Christian god, suppose he had given some of his creation the gift of free will? How would he then know his own future since he doesn't control how his creatures would act, and then how he would counter-react?
That doesn't explain why you think the universe was created from nothing. The universe need not have come to be from nothing. So the question is still relevant: how do you know?
How do you know this? Do you just make this up as you go along? Am I to accept these assertions at face value?
"A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.[4][5] It is this balancing of the total universal energy budget that enables the open-ended growth possible with inflation; during inflation energy flows from the gravitational field (or geometry) to the inflaton field—the total gravitational energy decreases (i.e. becomes more negative) and the total inflaton energy increases (becomes more positive). But the respective energy densities remain constant and opposite since the region is inflating. Consequently, inflation explains the otherwise curious cancellation of matter and gravitational energy on cosmological scales, which is consistent with astronomical observations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with inflation theory before parroting that again.
Not my "Divine Flame", but if we look to modern cosmology, it would seem that very little "power" would be needed to create the cosmos.
An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenvolent thinking being with plans and goals and emotions, and who exists in three distinct persons, is by definition much more complex than a physical law or force without any of that extra baggage. You can't rationally argue against that.
Who's saying the non deity-related creation of the universe was a "random accident"? That tends to be something that only Christians say. That statement seems to be in the same vein as "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".
Right, a completely unfounded assumption. If someone replies to you and says the universe doesn't seem like a designed machine at all, and asked you to prove it, what would you say?
Well yes, that's the list I narrowed down to earlier, but I'm going through this little exercise to see if you can figure out any characteristic traits different from what I have already. So far, we've agreed on an immaterial, omnipotent, uncaused,omniscient, free causal agent. So together, we've already narrowed down the list of possible candidates quite a bit.You already told me the cause of the universe is an Abrahamic God, or possibly a "mean one".
Well I think I already did reply earlier. Math can be used to describe all kinds of things, even things that don't exist. As I mentioned, there are a few philosophical arguments showing that actual infinities don't exist, but that doesn't mean they can't be used as mathematical devices to explore various concepts.Joshua, please respond.
You claim you have taken classes in quantum mechanics and general relativity, so using math and physics to help your argument shouldn't be a problem. You always cite cosmology papers, so I don't see why you'd rather just stick to philosophy. I take it your "side" doesn't get the fair defense if math comes into play?
Well I think I already did reply earlier. Math can be used to describe all kinds of things, even things that don't exist. As I mentioned, there are a few philosophical arguments showing that actual infinities don't exist, but that doesn't mean they can't be used as mathematical devices to explore various concepts.
Well yes, that's the list I narrowed down to earlier, but I'm going through this little exercise to see if you can figure out any characteristic traits different from what I have already. So far, we've agreed on an immaterial, omnipotent, uncaused,omniscient, free causal agent. So together, we've already narrowed down the list of possible candidates quite a bit.
Well I think I already did reply earlier. Math can be used to describe all kinds of things, even things that don't exist. As I mentioned, there are a few philosophical arguments showing that actual infinities don't exist, but that doesn't mean they can't be used as mathematical devices to explore various concepts.
So this hypothetical god is both material and not material. Timeless, and subject to time (can't make decisions or walk-n-talk in the Garden of Eden if you are stuck like a bug in amber). Powerful enough to create universes, but undetectable by any modern means to date.If God is powerful enough to create the universe then obviously he's powerful enough to be able to manifest himself materially.
Wiki is not a source, it is an aggregator. If you can falsify the scientific citations linked to in those pages I referenced, feel free to do so. Have you even read them?First of all, as I've said previously on these forums, Wikipedia is not a very good source.
Zero net energy. Note the difference.Second, it doesn't matter if the universe ultimately balances itself out and thus has "zero energy,"
Speculation. It could be tiny.the power required to create the universe and the laws that govern it would be immense:
If the universe is a closed system, as it is observed to be, then the energy of the Sun is balanced by gravity.imagine the power needed to create a star like our sun.
The energy of our weather systems comes from the light from the Sun hitting our atmosphere. Is this news?Imagine the power in a hurricane or tornado.
Obviously you are just making this up as you go along. You don't even know when you are - repeatedly - contradicting yourself.Obviously the Creator has to form these things and thus must have power over them.
By what testable criteria do you determine this?Not in the slightest. Let me repeat my analogy from earlier: which is simpler, saying that a tree made a car or an intelligent designer made a car? Obviously the latter. Why? Because a tree can't think, design, etc. Same applies to the universe.
"Why?" may not be a valid question.OK, so then why did this "thing" create the universe? How did it come into being?
Laws that are at the whim of this hypothetical deity of yours?I would show them the laws of the universe and the predictability of certain parts of the universe.
Thousands? Not millions? Billions? Do you accept the standard model of cosmology?For example, we can calculate what the stars looked like in the night sky thousands of years ago because we understand astronomy.
What would it look like if it were the product of natural forces?There's an exactitude here that strongly resembles the workings of a machine.
What are you extrapolating from?Not true. I've been attempting to rule out candidates for the cause of the universe by considering various characteristic traits that can be extrapolated out of the KCA using logic. As I stated several times, the KCA does not rule out an evil god as the cause universe.
Explain to me how an immaterial, disembodied mind can exist without time. If you can posit such an entity, then what's wrong the suggestion that the material could itself exist without time? You still haven't answered my question though: how do you know that the universe was preceded by nothing, which you defined as nothing material and no time. How does that even make sense, given that the term "precede" is temporal?Explain to me what materially can exist without time, apart from nothing.
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?