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.
You're cherrypicking, still.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.
How could the "Abrahamic God" be immaterial and walk and talk in the Garden of Eden? Is it both immaterial and material, as Achilles6129 claimed?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.
[apologist]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?
Thanks for the advice.I'm not talking about infinities at this point. I'm asking why you don't show me mathematically where you're argument is going. If you know QM and GR, you know a ton of math and high level physics. You can make a much stronger case that way.
You can think what you want. Philosophy is the proper discipline for this discussion.I'm just gonna say it. I'm calling out your bluff. I'm convinced you don't know QM and/or GR. Every time I bring it up, you don't give me a direct answer.
What was the point of bringing cosmology into it if you didn't want to discuss it?You can think what you want. Philosophy is the proper discipline for this discussion.
You can think what you want. Philosophy is the proper discipline for this discussion.
It doesn't matter whether you intended it as a joke or not. The point is that if p1) everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence and p2) the universe began to exist, then the conclusion that the universe has a cause for it's beginning to exist yields certain consequences. Every day, doing math, science, or just basic living, we use logic to make sense of and interact with our world. Sometimes, logic reveals understandings that sound counter-intuitive to us. For example, Einstein first used logic to come to the belief that gravity could bend light. It was quite some time later that he was able to find the right math to explain it, and he was already convinced that he was correct before non-believers "saw" it with their own "telescopic" eyes. Even now, some people still refuse to believe it.The dragon is a joke. I'm not taking it seriously. We can drop the dragon thing.
I understand that you desire to explain the beginning of the universe through a natural cause, but so far, the logic does not support it. I remember Hawking expressing how he was sad to disappoint so many time-travel fans, but he then went on to proclaim that it just doesn't seem to be a realistic possibility.I think if the universe had a beginning there's more to it naturally speaking than what anyone knows so far.
I understand. Sometimes the logic and evidence doesn't want to support our preconceived notions about reality. When things like that happen, it can be difficult to adjust our beliefs accordingly.So this "timeless", "uncaused" stuff doesn't sit well with me. I don't think before the universe there was absolute nothingness.
It's difficult to examine what the consequences of the conclusion are when you haven't defined the terms in the premises.It doesn't matter whether you intended it as a joke or not. The point is that if p1) everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence and p2) the universe began to exist, then the conclusion that the universe has a cause for it's beginning to exist yields certain consequences. Every day, doing math, science, or just basic living, we use logic to make sense of and interact with our world.
What reason do you have to think that it is impossible for a universe to form through natural processes that are, as yet, poorly understood?I understand that you desire to explain the beginning of the universe through a natural cause, but so far, the logic does not support it.
See previous comments on this. You've ignored most of the relevant responses to this.So anyway, so far we've agreed on an immaterial, omnipotent, uncaused, omniscient, free-causal agent as the cause for the beginning of the universe. I think it was also timeless for reasons I explained earlier. By doing so we've been able to trim down the list of possible candidates quite considerably. The logic doesn't point directly to the Christian god, but he certainly possesses all of the characteristic traits we've considered thus far.
This is perhaps the first stumbling block I find every time I look at the KCA: it's too vague and undefined. And if the one who is pushing the KCA as an argument relies upon the audience to define the goalposts for them and then moves those goalposts as it suits their agenda, I find that to be intellectually dishonest.Here is an interesting debate on the KCA between Jeremy E Walker and cjlr. The debate illustrates why terms need to be defined before examining whether the premises are supported. Joshua260 seems to be adopting a strategy similar to Jeremy's. For example, what does Joshua mean when he says "the universe began to exist"? If he means that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, then the premise is supported. If he means something else, however, then it might not be.
I understand that you desire to explain the beginning of the universe through a natural cause, but so far, the logic does not support it. I remember Hawking expressing how he was sad to disappoint so many time-travel fans, but he then went on to proclaim that it just doesn't seem to be a realistic possibility.
The same problem affects the first premise also. If by 'cause' and 'begins to exist,' he means the creation of matter, energy, and spacetime from nothing, then he cannot appeal to our experience of causality as support for the first premise. We don't experience things 'beginning to exist' in this way.This is perhaps the first stumbling block I find every time I look at the KCA: it's too vague and undefined. And if the one who is pushing the KCA as an argument relies upon the audience to define the goalposts for them and then moves those goalposts as it suits their agenda, I find that to be intellectually dishonest.
The same problem affects the first premise also. If by 'cause' and 'begins to exist,' he means the creation of matter, energy, and spacetime from nothing, then he cannot appeal to our experience of causality as support for the first premise. We don't experience things 'beginning to exist' in this way.
This is essentially the second stumbling block I find as well ... at P1. Depending on context (i.e. "If by ________ he means _______"), speaking in terms of causality itself may become meaningless and/or insufficient, since the laws of physics as we understand them are unclear during the Plank era (and before, obviously).The same problem affects the first premise also. If by 'cause' and 'begins to exist,' he means the creation of matter, energy, and spacetime from nothing, then he cannot appeal to our experience of causality as support for the first premise. We don't experience things 'beginning to exist' in this way.
The only minds and intelligence we observe are processes, properties of brains; how does that work without a brain (for your god)? Is that like a waterfall without the water?Who's intelligence? Ours? If you're referring to our intelligence, then yes it began it exist. It's not uncaused and it's not disembodied (since it's within our bodies, obviously).
How powerful?Doesn't matter. You see, other "gods," aliens, fairies, or "the Divine Flame" would have to be powerful enough
Why? What choices, if any, could be made?and intelligent enough to create this universe.
Not at all. God-with-a-capital-G carries with it thousands of years of dogma that those others do not, making it much harder for it to get over the evidential or parsimony bar.All that you've done is substituted the "gods," aliens, fairies, or "the Divine Flame" for God. So you really do believe in a God, you just labeled him differently.
I understand that you desire to explain the beginning of the universe through a natural cause, but so far, the logic does not support it. I remember Hawking expressing how he was sad to disappoint so many time-travel fans, but he then went on to proclaim that it just doesn't seem to be a realistic possibility.
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?