Creation Ex Nihilo- Without God

[ElijahW]

The words I used.

Thorough explanation!

I don't really care about labelling the fallacies involved.

You should because you are using them incorrectly.

You made a case for "God" as a 'first cause', built on assumptions. It was weak.

And your case for the universe being around an infinite amount of time is nonexistent, because I’m not even sure if you are aware yet that is what you should believe if you don’t believe in a God.

Is that rational, basing decisions on future unknowns?

Nope, it is based on the evidence of you presenting a person who is completely unfamiliar with this subject matter. If it turns out in the future that this is all a trick then my understanding of you will change according to the new evidence.

I don't know. Have you one to compare it to?

If you don’t establish the criteria for what is irrational and rational then how are you going to know what you are looking for? You admittedly don’t have an interest in logic and reason enough to use the labels properly so how are you supposed to be able to recognize when someone is utilizing it?

It's looking more like word salad, at this point.

I did that. You said it was wrong, and that "God" was not a word. What do I do with that?
I supplied an alternative. You have the floor.

Hopefully you take a second and reconsider it, and realize that what you are saying is utterly illogical. I know you aren’t big into understanding logic and fallacies but you are breaking the first law of Logic which is the law of identity. A is A. A isn’t B. What this means is that something isn’t another thing. This seems obvious until you talk to someone who thinks that a thing and the word that represents that thing are identical
If you know who popularized the God is word thing I would like to know because it seems like I’ve heard it a few times now but all I have in my head is this Smog song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Eq7dcYjdls.

You should have qualified your statement then.

What do you wish was qualified and how?

I did in post #44. Other that that, you have provided very little to work with.

I'm not going have to repeat myself a lot in this thread, am I? I just went through that with Michael.

From post 44:” Where did you establish that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

I don't see how you made your way from 'first cause' all the way to the character in the bible, "God".
​

You asked a question. You didn’t point out where I committed any fallacies or errors in my logic. Your question was nonsense because you need to be arguing for a universe that has been around an infinite amount of time if you are arguing against a beginning.

Where do they talk about Jesus?

Lol. We are aren’t talking about God the father any longer but out of curiosity could explain what you think they should be talking about for them to be talking about Jesus?

Now I don't understand the basic tenets to western philosophy?

Maybe you cannot see what I know from way up there on that high horse.

Do you feel that your condescending tone lends weight to your arguments? Is that a Christian thing?

Even if a 'first cause' was required at the instantiation of the cosmos, and you have not provided evidence of that, you would still need to show why it would have to be a deity, and why it would be yours in particular.

No you don’t seem to, nor any of the rules to logic it seems. I’m sorry if it comes off as condescending and I’m not going to argue that it isn’t because I haven’t figured out the nice way to let someone know they don’t have the necessary knowledge to comment, in any informed fashion, on this subject matter. Nor have I gotten over my problem of judgment of people who willfully decide to not understand what is going on around them. It’d be one thing if you didn’t have access to the information. I’d be open to pointers on how to better improve my behavior when talking with people who aren’t going to like hearing they aren’t as informed as they need to be, or as we can assume they think they are. If I had to start over, what would be the best way to get you to see you need to do some studying without me coming off like an ass?

What do you mean by deity? What attributes does it need to have to be called a deity?

You did it again: you said "a God".

Present your argument. It will need to show that, if there was a beginning to the universe, that it required a cause, and that this cause would necessarily be a deity. You will need to define "deity" while you are at it. I will ask, how do we know that what we think of as cause and effect applies to the moment of the instantiation of the cosmos?

I’m not sure why the “a” is throwing you off so much.

You need to define deity because as of right now you haven’t said word one that doesn’t make me think you mean a ghost like creature like you may have seen on television. If the attributes that you think need to be required to call something a deity are there I’ll say so. What would be the differences between a first cause that is a deity and a first cause that isn’t a deity?

 

[Davian]

Thorough explanation!

You should because you are using them incorrectly.

And your case for the universe being around an infinite amount of time is nonexistent, because I’m not even sure if you are aware yet that is what you should believe if you don’t believe in a God.

Now you are telling me what I should believe in.

I didn't make a case for "the universe being around an infinite amount of time."

So, tell me, where do you use this "logic"?

Nope, it is based on the evidence of you presenting a person who is completely unfamiliar with this subject matter. If it turns out in the future that this is all a trick then my understanding of you will change according to the new evidence.

So you are not going to apologize because in the future you may find out that I am being insincere?

This logic stuff is tricky!

If you don’t establish the criteria for what is irrational and rational then how are you going to know what you are looking for? You admittedly don’t have an interest in logic and reason enough to use the labels properly so how are you supposed to be able to recognize when someone is utilizing it?

I get by.

Hopefully you take a second and reconsider it, and realize that what you are saying is utterly illogical. I know you aren’t big into understanding logic and fallacies but you are breaking the first law of Logic which is the law of identity. A is A. A isn’t B. What this means is that something isn’t another thing. This seems obvious until you talk to someone who thinks that a thing and the word that represents that thing are identical
If you know who popularized the God is word thing I would like to know because it seems like I’ve heard it a few times now but all I have in my head is this Smog song

I don't have flash turned on. Could you give me an overview of the video?

What do you wish was qualified and how?

Your absolute statements as non-absolute statements when they are not absolute.

From post 44:” Where did you establish that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

I don't see how you made your way from 'first cause' all the way to the character in the bible, "God".
​

You asked a question. You didn’t point out where I committed any fallacies or errors in my logic.

The thing about questions, is that they need answers. That part you have not yet done, so there is not much to point out.

Was that your intent?

Your question was nonsense because you need to be arguing for a universe that has been around an infinite amount of time if you are arguing against a beginning.

Where did I argue against a beginning? Now I am wondering if you are serious about this.

Lol. We are aren’t talking about God the father any longer but out of curiosity could explain what you think they should be talking about for them to be talking about Jesus?

I asked where Plato and Socrates discussed the Christian God. Does that not include Jesus?

No you don’t seem to, nor any of the rules to logic it seems. I’m sorry if it comes off as condescending and I’m not going to argue that it isn’t because I haven’t figured out the nice way to let someone know they don’t have the necessary knowledge to comment, in any informed fashion, on this subject matter. Nor have I gotten over my problem of judgment of people who willfully decide to not understand what is going on around them. It’d be one thing if you didn’t have access to the information. I’d be open to pointers on how to better improve my behavior when talking with people who aren’t going to like hearing they aren’t as informed as they need to be, or as we can assume they think they are. If I had to start over, what would be the best way to get you to see you need to do some studying without me coming off like an ass?

Recalling our earlier conversations on this board, I doubt that problem could be addressed. And, your presumptions about me turned out to be wrong.

What do you mean by deity? What attributes does it need to have to be called a deity?

You tell me. The word would appear to be interchangeable with "god". It may also apply to "God", or as you say, a "God". You should work that out.

I’m not sure why the “a” is throwing you off so much.

It's called "grammar."

You need to define deity because as of right now you haven’t said word one that doesn’t make me think you mean a ghost like creature like you may have seen on television.

I only dropped in "deity" as a response to your use of "a God". Use it or not, it is up to you. Do make an effort with the grammar, though.

If the attributes that you think need to be required to call something a deity are there I’ll say so. What would be the differences between a first cause that is a deity and a first cause that isn’t a deity?

You said, "if there is a beginning, then there is/was a God." I do not see how that follows. Or is grammatically correct. Where is this cosmological argument of yours? Maybe that might clarify your claim.

 

[ElijahW]

Now you are telling me what I should believe in.

I didn't make a case for "the universe being around an infinite amount of time."

So, tell me, where do you use this "logic"?

Yes, I am telling what you believe if you don’t believe in any understanding of God. If you believe in a beginning to the universe but don’t like to call God because you imagine a sky daddy then that is your issue, based on your assumptions. The rest of the world doesn’t necessarily share your understanding of God and while the majority might, you will often have to clarify when you use the term God, if you strictly mean sky daddy. Now when you do this people may ask for evidence of why you assume that, which we can assume is why you aren’t actually putting forward the understanding of God you are working with

So you are not going to apologize because in the future you may find out that I am being insincere?

No. I will just change my position on you understanding this material. There is no need for me to apologize if it turns out you are being dishonest and this is all just the game.

I get by.

At your job you may get by but not when it comes to understanding theology/philosophy.

I don't have flash turned on. Could you give me an overview of the video?

Just a song with the lyric “god is a word and the conversation ends there. It was just running though my head.

Your absolute statements as non-absolute statements when they are not absolute.

For example…?

The thing about questions, is that they need answers. That part you have not yet done, so there is not much to point out.

Was that your intent?

Both have been answered in pointing out that the understanding of the Christian God you are assuming, you can’t support, and that a universe with a beginning is required to have an initial cause, regardless if you think the label "God" should be attached to it..

Where did I argue against a beginning? Now I am wondering if you are serious about this.

Again, that is what arguing against God means.

I asked where Plato and Socrates discussed the Christian God. Does that not include Jesus?

Why would it include a man born centuries later?

Recalling our earlier conversations on this board, I doubt that problem could be addressed. And, your presumptions about me turned out to be wrong.

Oh, I see we have talked before. I also see the conversation ended like it is right now with you unwilling to put forward a serious understanding of God.

You tell me. The word would appear to be interchangeable with "god". It may also apply to "God", or as you say, a "God". You should work that out.

The problem is with your definition not being articulated, just like the previous conversation. I’m not a mind reader and you don’t like it when I articulate my assumptions about why you aren’t putting forward anything.

It's called "grammar."

That’s helpful.

I only dropped in "deity" as a response to your use of "a God". Use it or not, it is up to you. Do make an effort with the grammar, though.

You said, "if there is a beginning, then there is/was a God." I do not see how that follows. Or is grammatically correct. Where is this cosmological argument of yours? Maybe that might clarify your claim.

It is only because you have assumptions about the word God. If you realize they are just superstitions you picked up from the masses in childhood and not an actual understanding of God that you are going to find supported by the NT or the Church fathers then you can move forward in this conversation.

 

[Illuminaughty]

A massive quantum vacuum fluctuation in what?

In space? Because if you've already got space, you've already got a universe, and you're not really explaining anything.

Thing:

1. 1. The real or concrete substance of an entity.
   2. An entity existing in space and time.
   3. An inanimate object.

Space may be a thing in terms of an object of thought, a mathematical construct, or a way of categorizing our experience but there is no evidence that space is a substance or substantial in nature. We would still be getting apparent substance from non substance* and in a way that could be labled ex nihilio though certainly the term would be open to debate. What is this *thing* composed of ? Space without matter and energy seems like an empty concept to me too. If space exists it does so only interdependently with matter and energy. They would be mutualy co-arising. Does space exist with out matter or energy to make spatial referents like distance possible ? It (along with time) may simply be an artifact of our limited manner of perception rather than a literal objective thing out there too.

* I think this theory is predicated on a substantial view of reality. I would throw out the whole idea of "substance" myself. I would say instead - process only. For that reason I'm not saying I agree with theory in every respect.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Sometimes it seems that the Church Fathers had two different god concepts. They have the more philosophic idea of first cause or the platonic realm of ideas and such that they borrowed from Greek philosophy. Then they have the concept of God as a personal being who incarnates as a man, speaks to people from a burning bush, orders genocide against his enemies, expresses likes and dislikes, sets moral codes, and generally appears like a human monarch in the sky. They say this person is omnipotent, omipresent, omniscient and all good too which tends to run into a lot of logical paradoxs. They never seem to mesh the two concepts that well. The first concept seems to be more for apologetic and debate purposes the later is the more mythological / non philosophical Jewish concept of God that they actually worship and serve. Like they borrowed philosophy simply to "prove" some sort of abstract impersonal Source and then jump to a mythological Trinity of persons that has nothing to do with the former. A bait and switch tactic of sorts.

 

[Davian]

Yes, I am telling what you believe if you don’t believe in any understanding of God. If you believe in a beginning to the universe but don’t like to call God because you imagine a sky daddy then that is your issue, based on your assumptions. The rest of the world doesn’t necessarily share your understanding of God and while the majority might, you will often have to clarify when you use the term God, if you strictly mean sky daddy. Now when you do this people may ask for evidence of why you assume that, which we can assume is why you aren’t actually putting forward the understanding of God you are working with

On the subject of straw men, where you get your beliefs about the beginnings of the cosmos/universe, outside of theistic claims? Do you have a reference, preferably something from the 21st century? While you complain about others, you clutch your own share of straw.

No. I will just change my position on you understanding this material. There is no need for me to apologize if it turns out you are being dishonest and this is all just the game.

Don't bother, if that is your attitude.

At your job you may get by but not when it comes to understanding theology/philosophy.

Really? What do I do for a living?

Just a song with the lyric “god is a word and the conversation ends there. It was just running though my head.

For example…?

Both have been answered in pointing out that the understanding of the Christian God you are assuming, you can’t support, and that a universe with a beginning is required to have an initial cause, regardless if you think the label "God" should be attached to it..

Again, that is what arguing against God means.

Only in your straw man version of cosmology.

Why would it include a man born centuries later?

"Prophecy"?

Oh, I see we have talked before. I also see the conversation ended like it is right now with you unwilling to put forward a serious understanding of God.

The problem is with your definition not being articulated, just like the previous conversation. I’m not a mind reader and you don’t like it when I articulate my assumptions about why you aren’t putting forward anything.

I did articulate it, and it was was serious. And backed up by a substantial Wikipedia page.

You just don't like it.

That’s helpful.

To borrow from your previous post, "what would be the best way to get you to see you need to do some studying without me coming off like an ass?"

It is only because you have assumptions about the word God.

For the third time, where is this cosmological argument of yours?

If you realize they are just superstitions you picked up from the masses in childhood and not an actual understanding of God that you are going to find supported by the NT or the Church fathers then you can move forward in this conversation.

So we are back to the 'you will believe once you believe' line? No, you will have to state your claim, and support it. Be sure to reference contemporary theoretical cosmology in that cosmological argument.

 

[Elioenai26]

This subject has been discussed in depth over in the philosophy forum. The specific discussion regarding quantum mechanics begins in post #51 of the thread linked below.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7674415-6/

 

[ElijahW]

On the subject of straw men, where you get your beliefs about the beginnings of the cosmos/universe, outside of theistic claims? Do you have a reference, preferably something from the 21st century? While you complain about others, you clutch your own share of straw.

My beliefs come from considering the two possibilities and choosing which one I consider possible and rejecting the one I see as being impossible.

Only in your straw man version of cosmology.

I’m not sure what you mean. Whose understanding of the cosmos have I misrepresented and how?

"Prophecy"?

Why are we looking to him to be a prophet and what do you think he should have predicted to predict Jesus?

I did articulate it, and it was was serious. And backed up by a substantial Wikipedia page.

You just don't like it.

I don’t know what wiki you are talking about; all I know is the god is a character in a story response and I’m sorry I’m not going to accept that as serious. If we saw a person walk up to a painting of a bowl of fruit and try to eat it then we would think that person is insane and I don’t wish to assume that is the case with you, even if you do make the exact same mistake with confusing things for representation those things.

For the third time,

where is this cosmological argument of yours?

Of mine? I don’t know what you are talking about or why you need me to post the cosmological argument for you.

Kalām cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So we are back to the 'you will believe once you believe' line? No, you will have to state your claim, and support it. Be sure to reference contemporary theoretical cosmology in that cosmological argument.

No, it’s not “believe once you believe”, it’s understanding once you realize that you don’t. You assume you have a correct understanding of this subject and that is an incorrect assumption. If you ever decide to swallow your pride and consider the possibility you don’t have a correct understanding of this then maybe you will look back at this with the mindset that doesn’t assume superstition.

 

[Elioenai26]

My beliefs come from considering the two possibilities and choosing which one I consider possible and rejecting the one I see as being impossible.

I’m not sure what you mean. Whose understanding of the cosmos have I misrepresented and how?


Why are we looking to him to be a prophet and what do you think he should have predicted to predict Jesus?

I don’t know what wiki you are talking about; all I know is the god is a character in a story response and I’m sorry I’m not going to accept that as serious. If we saw a person walk up to a painting of a bowl of fruit and try to eat it then we would think that person is insane and I don’t wish to assume that is the case with you, even if you do make the exact same mistake with confusing things for representation those things.

Of mine? I don’t know what you are talking about or why you need me to post the cosmological argument for you.

Kalām cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, it’s not “believe once you believe”, it’s understanding once you realize that you don’t. You assume you have a correct understanding of this subject and that is an incorrect assumption. If you ever decide to swallow your pride and consider the possibility you don’t have a correct understanding of this then maybe you will look back at this with the mindset that doesn’t assume superstition.

Davian knows exactly what arguments exist for the existence of God. He knows because he at one time was adamant at trying to refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument over in the Philosophy Forum.

 

[ElijahW]

Sometimes it seems that the Church Fathers had two different god concepts. They have the more philosophic idea of first cause or the platonic realm of ideas and such that they borrowed from Greek philosophy. Then they have the concept of God as a personal being who incarnates as a man, speaks to people from a burning bush, orders genocide against his enemies, expresses likes and dislikes, sets moral codes, and generally appears like a human monarch in the sky. They say this person is omnipotent, omipresent, omniscient and all good too which tends to run into a lot of logical paradoxs. They never seem to mesh the two concepts that well. The first concept seems to be more for apologetic and debate purposes the later is the more mythological / non philosophical Jewish concept of God that they actually worship and serve. Like they borrowed philosophy simply to "prove" some sort of abstract impersonal Source and then jump to a mythological Trinity of persons that has nothing to do with the former. A bait and switch tactic of sorts.

There is a lot of time and ideological changes between the writing of the Torah and the writing of the NT. The debate on how rational/allegorical the Torah should be interpreted was a huge issue in early Christian development. For a good period of time it looked like it was going to be a toss-up between those who wanted to take the Torah and Jewish scripture literally and those who wanted to take it allegorically. The Christians who decided to take it allegorically became the orthodox religion and those who took it literally like Marion and his followers pretty much disappeared.

By taking the scripture allegorically I mean that the texts were interpreted in light of new Greek thinking about spiritual elements, Philo being the primary example of that thinking from the time of Jesus. If the text said something that if taken literally would mean that the writer was saying something illogical about God then the passage was meant to be interpreted allegorically by their standards. In particular the pressing issues was God changing and often the solution was to say that it wasn’t God but God’s first born; the intermediary between man and God. Marcion is saying pretty much the same thing but he says that the Jews didn’t know that wasn’t actually God.

Now God is cake to understand compared to the intermediary which goes by a ton of names and is described in all kinds of fashions. While both God and the intermediary are both constant, they differ in that God is unknowable and the intermediary is intelligible. The law of non contradiction requires that those two things are distinct but after that it becomes debatable if there needs to be any more divisions made in the spiritual element to create more spiritual elements. If it should be understood as a multitude of gods/spirits/angels/aeons, each doing a particular thing, or just a single spirit that does a multitude of things. As Paul says, there many gifts but one spirit and that is the direction orthodox Christianity went but still used particular labels to describe the relative activity of the Holy spirit for the point that is trying to be made by the writer.

The spirit understood this way makes for an impressive entity that generates some grandiose labels but those labels aren’t meant like super powers for a genie guy, but philosophical positions where the alternative would mean things like God/Spirit was corporeal, not active, there was no realm of ideas or the world was a flawed creation. None of the labels used should mean that we assume they were understanding the entity as anthropomorphic.

The spirit isn’t understood to be like a man but man can be understood to be like the spirit. The more reasonable and the closer to the truth you are the more you are personifying the spirit corporeally. As you mentioned earlier the possibility of reaching the absolute truth is questionable for an individual but the orthodox Christians believed that is what Jesus did and in doing so he personified God’s first born spirit in a corporeal fashion.

 

[Davian]

My beliefs come from considering the two possibilities and choosing which one I consider possible and rejecting the one I see as being impossible.

I’m not sure what you mean. Whose understanding of the cosmos have I misrepresented and how?

Mine, for one, and that of the OP.

Why are we looking to him to be a prophet and what do you think he should have predicted to predict Jesus?

I am asking you. It seemed like you were asking for a guess. It's your claim that it was the *Christian* God they were writing about. Support it or drop it.

I don’t know what wiki you are talking about;

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all I know is the god is a character in a story response and I’m sorry I’m not going to accept that as serious.

You should then update the wiki page as you see fit. I will check it out once you are done.

If we saw a person walk up to a painting of a bowl of fruit and try to eat it then we would think that person is insane and I don’t wish to assume that is the case with you, even if you do make the exact same mistake with confusing things for representation those things.

Only if you are presuming that you have the correct understanding of "God".

Tell me, have you considered that you may be mistaken?

Of mine? I don’t know what you are talking about or why you need me to post the cosmological argument for you.

Kalām cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I ask as I did not want to presume which variation of the cosmological argument you were working with.

As mentioned on the web page you linked, there are problems with the KCA, some of which is detailed in the OP of this thread.

No, it’s not “believe once you believe”, it’s understanding once you realize that you don’t. You assume you have a correct understanding of this subject

Any assumptions that I hold regarding the subjects at hand have been made only after careful consideration of the evidence, and are open to change in light of new evidence.

I will happily admit that I may be wrong, once shown where, and how. It is why I post here, and not at the more skeptical site where I used to. Lots to learn there, as here, but less in the way of challenges.

and that is an incorrect assumption.

That has yet to be demonstrated. At this point, it is only your opinion.

If you ever decide to swallow your pride and consider the possibility you don’t have a correct understanding of this then maybe you will look back at this with the mindset that doesn’t assume superstition.

Now "pride" is why I don't accept your assertions? What was that about you being a mind reader? You have no idea how wrong you are.

You are telling me what I should think, based on an outdated cosmological argument. You have the grammatically challenged "if there is a beginning, then there is/was a God." On that, you want me to admit I am wrong, so we can move forward.

No, you will have to state your claim, and support it. Outdated cosmological arguments don't count.

 

[Davian]

Davian knows exactly what arguments exist for the existence of God.

I make no such absolute claims of knowledge. And, he did not say it was the KCA until after the third time I asked. Do try to keep up.

He knows because he at one time was adamant at trying to refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument over in the Philosophy Forum.

Where I pointed out problems with the KCA (as you presented it in your OP), and you would not acknowledge them, with the excuse that you do not like my theological position.

 

[ElijahW]

Mine, for one, and that of the OP.

What do you think I have misrepresented about your understanding of the cosmos?

I am asking you. It seemed like you were asking for a guess. It's your claim that it was the *Christian* God they were writing about. Support it or drop it.

It was supported and you were unable to articulate any difference between the understanding of God presented in Plato and the Christian God. You instead asked why he doesn’t mention Jesus’ name, which was funny but obviously an attempt to divert from the fact that you can’t support your position.

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You should then update the wiki page as you see fit. I will check it out once you are done.

Based on what I am suggesting, what do you think should be changed on that page and how?

Only if you are presuming that you have the correct understanding of "God".

Tell me, have you considered that you may be mistaken?

Should I considered if I’m mistaken about the representation of something and the actual thing should be understood as the same, or the assumption that everyone throughout history had the same anthropomorphic understanding of God?

I ask as I did not want to presume which variation of the cosmological argument you were working with.

As mentioned on the web page you linked, there are problems with the KCA, some of which is detailed in the OP of this thread.

If you think you can make a rational argument against the cosmological argument then go for it. You brought it up so I hope there is good reason.

Any assumptions that I hold regarding the subjects at hand have been made only after careful consideration of the evidence, and are open to change in light of new evidence.

I will happily admit that I may be wrong, once shown where, and how. It is why I post here, and not at the more skeptical site where I used to. Lots to learn there, as here, but less in the way of challenges.

Tell me about when you considered the possibility of this understanding being a bias and what texts you read that reconfirmed that everyone throughout history understood God superstitiously? What did you use to identify someone who was speaking of an irrational understanding of God and not a rational understanding? What was the initial cause of you questioning the assumption originally?

Now "pride" is why I don't accept your assertions? What was that about you being a mind reader? You have no idea how wrong you are.

You are telling me what I should think, based on an outdated cosmological argument. You have the grammatically challenged "if there is a beginning, then there is/was a God." On that, you want me to admit I am wrong, so we can move forward.
No, you will have to state your claim, and support it. Outdated cosmological arguments don't count.

It’s not about being right or wrong about the cosmological argument but about understanding rationally what not believing the universe has a beginning means, and not assuming that if it does have a beginning that means something superstitious about the nature of the initial cause. Do you realize what you are arguing for if you are arguing against the universe having a beginning and do you recognize the difficulties with what you are suggesting? Assuming you have actually considered your position, how did you address those issues?

 

[Davian]

What do you think I have misrepresented about your understanding of the cosmos?

It was supported and you were unable to articulate any difference between the understanding of God presented in Plato and the Christian God. You instead asked why he doesn’t mention Jesus’ name, which was funny but obviously an attempt to divert from the fact that you can’t support your position.

Based on what I am suggesting, what do you think should be changed on that page and how?

Should I considered if I’m mistaken about the representation of something and the actual thing should be understood as the same, or the assumption that everyone throughout history had the same anthropomorphic understanding of God?

If you think you can make a rational argument against the cosmological argument then go for it. You brought it up so I hope there is good reason.

Tell me about when you considered the possibility of this understanding being a bias and what texts you read that reconfirmed that everyone throughout history understood God superstitiously? What did you use to identify someone who was speaking of an irrational understanding of God and not a rational understanding? What was the initial cause of you questioning the assumption originally?

It’s not about being right or wrong about the cosmological argument but about understanding rationally what not believing the universe has a beginning means, and not assuming that if it does have a beginning that means something superstitious about the nature of the initial cause. Do you realize what you are arguing for if you are arguing against the universe having a beginning and do you recognize the difficulties with what you are suggesting? Assuming you have actually considered your position, how did you address those issues?

If you are not going to state your claim, I can't see the point of continuing.

I have already answered those questions, and I find having to repeat myself gets old fast.

Let's go back to the OP, with your cosmological argument: where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

 

[ElijahW]

If you are not going to state your claim, I can't see the point of continuing.

I have already answered those questions, and I find having to repeat myself gets old fast.

Let's go back to the OP, with your cosmological argument: where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

Please answer the questions I asked of you.

 

[Davian]

Please answer the questions I asked of you.

You first.

I have asked, many times, in various forms, this question, starting at post #44:

Where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

 

[Michael]

You first.

I have asked, many times, in various forms, this question, starting at post #44:

Where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

How about basic physics? Every action has an equal but opposite reaction, and every event has a 'cause'. Even radioactivity turns out to be influenced by external events. Assuming there actually was a "bang" there was by definition a 'cause' of that event, no?

 

[ElijahW]

You first.

I have asked, many times, in various forms, this question, starting at post #44:

Where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

You first.

I have asked, many times, in various forms, this question, starting at post #44:

Where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

I have already answered the question. The basis of this conversation is that I am claiming that you don't have the basic understanding of the conversation to ask rational questions or identify a rational understanding. Now you are moving the goal posts to something you can argue for because you can imitate an argument of someone else’s without ever demonstrating you understand the subject matter or even the words you are saying.

Let’s review where we are at in the conversation.

You asked for a rational understanding of God which is either a rhetorical question or is implying that all understandings of God are irrational. It doesn’t appear to be rhetorical since you haven’t demonstrated any awareness of any understanding of God that isn’t a sky genie. You don’t believe that the Platonic understanding of God and the Christian understanding are the same but you can’t show or even say what the difference might be. You are working with an assumption that everyone all throughout time has had the same superstitious understanding, and when asked if you have ever questioned that assumption you couldn’t explain that process or why you feel that assumption isn’t an assumption but actually based on evidence. Not being familiar with this subject or logic you don’t understand what rejecting a beginning/God means you actually do believe. Since you don’t know what the alternative to a beginning is, you don’t know what you are supposed to be arguing for or arguing against if you wish to argue against God.

This brings us to this point of you asking questions, (like if the initiation of the universe need a cause) that if you were aware of the conversation, doesn’t support what should be your position. I say "should" because you aren’t aware of what you are arguing for because you have an assumption about what God is and don’t understand excluding the middle and assume false dichotomies when you see two choices. If you understood the conversation then you would realize how dumb your question is and how it is a clear indication you don’t have a fundamental understanding of this subject.

 

[Davian]

You first.

I have asked, many times, in various forms, this question, starting at post #44:

Where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

I have already answered the question. The basis of this conversation is that I am claiming that you don't have the basic understanding of the conversation to ask rational questions or identify a rational understanding. Now you are moving the goal posts to something you can argue for because you can imitate an argument of someone else’s without ever demonstrating you understand the subject matter or even the words you are saying.

Let’s review where we are at in the conversation.

You asked for a rational understanding of God which is either a rhetorical question or is implying that all understandings of God are irrational. It doesn’t appear to be rhetorical since you haven’t demonstrated any awareness of any understanding of God that isn’t a sky genie. You don’t believe that the Platonic understanding of God and the Christian understanding are the same but you can’t show or even say what the difference might be. You are working with an assumption that everyone all throughout time has had the same superstitious understanding, and when asked if you have ever questioned that assumption you couldn’t explain that process or why you feel that assumption isn’t an assumption but actually based on evidence. Not being familiar with this subject or logic you don’t understand what rejecting a beginning/God means you actually do believe. Since you don’t know what the alternative to a beginning is, you don’t know what you are supposed to be arguing for or arguing against if you wish to argue against God.

This brings us to this point of you asking questions, (like if the initiation of the universe need a cause) that if you were aware of the conversation, doesn’t support what should be your position. I say "should" because you aren’t aware of what you are arguing for because you have an assumption about what God is and don’t understand excluding the middle and assume false dichotomies when you see two choices. If you understood the conversation then you would realize how dumb your question is and how it is a clear indication you don’t have a fundamental understanding of this subject.

Again, you are misrepresenting my position. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

Before I repeat it again:

Where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

 

[Michael]

Where has it been scientifically established that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

I really cannot appreciate this part of your argument quite frankly. According to mainstream theory, inflation was a 'cause' was it not?