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.
We value you personally far more than non-stamp collecting. Please don't confuse the two.
It’s not a part of logic at all. It’s from Aristotle, who contributed plenty to classical thought about logic, but it’s a formalized synthetic proposition, not an analytical one.I know it is no longer considered a law, but it was by Aristotle. I know now it is just considered a rule of logic. But either way I can make my points seen below.
It’s not a problem when scientists look for causal relationships within the observable universe. It’s a problem when apologists assume the universe must itself be an effect of something else based on the inferred existence of causality within it.Not just apologists, but also scientists use those definitions everyday. And they make conclusions about reality using them.
Scientists do not conclude that the universe must have a cause, and those who entertain the possibility do not restrict such a cause to something resembling what apologists are arguing for.I am not claiming certainty. I am claiming inference to the best explanation. Scientists study the characteristics of effects everyday to determine their cause. By doing so, they can decide the most likely cause. And that is what I am doing with the universe, we study the characteristics of the universe such as having all the characteristics of an effect, therefore most likely it has a cause. Then you can look at more of its characteristics to determine characteristics of that cause.
The odds that I will do that are 100%.What are my options that you promise not to equivocate or play silly manipulative "gotcha games" with?
Well, which way is it?I'm referring to the universe that started with the Big Bang, which includes all empirical matter.
Anything that came before that is trying to smuggle in an already falsified steady state theory.
Does God have order? If so, then who was his orderer?Order
Necessitates
An Orderer
Because, according to the rules of your little head game, I declared "word salad." Yeah. Or, you can take your unfounded accusation back and we can just move on. Or, you can do one better and admit you're hanging onto a completely ambiguous definition of "universe" yourself, and don't want to discuss it further.
I'm sorry Merle. According to your rules, your claim of word salad is only remedied by "what's your definition?" Not, "every possible definition in the dictionary."
Now answer my question.
OK, here is one: Maybe something equivalent to a quantum effect triggered a huge Big Bang out of nothing.Feel free to provide alternate causes for the universe that you would not consider to be bunkers. I have an answer do you?
Our universe has galaxies that are crashing into one another...how is that “order”?Complete chaos, or literally nothing. Cosmos is a Greek word for the order of the universe. Order necessarily requires an orderer.
Our universe has galaxies that are crashing into one another...how is that “order”?
I have never been hostile to you. You just confirmed much of my experience with atheists, hostility as well.You're right. Christians are generally much more hostile to me than that.
No, the statement "Every effect has an antecedent cause." is analytically true. Just like the statement "A bachelor is an unmarried man." Or "two plus two are four." Aristotle has classified six causes. The cause we are discussing here is the "efficient cause."ed: I know it is no longer considered a law, but it was by Aristotle. I know now it is just considered a rule of logic. But either way I can make my points seen below.
g4: It’s not a part of logic at all. It’s from Aristotle, who contributed plenty to classical thought about logic, but it’s a formalized synthetic proposition, not an analytical one.
As I stated earlier, many years ago we were not sure logic worked in outer space, but we made the rational assumption that it did and it was later confirmed that it did with space travel. So also, we are not certain that logic works "outside" the universe, but it is rational to assume it does until proven someday.ed: Not just apologists, but also scientists use those definitions everyday. And they make conclusions about reality using them.
g4: It’s not a problem when scientists look for causal relationships within the observable universe. It’s a problem when apologists assume the universe must itself be an effect of something else based on the inferred existence of causality within it.
Actually some have and do. Such as Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking (before he became an atheist), Arno Penzias, and several others I could name. But of course, most are not going to claim it is the Christian God because they would be ostracized and probably fired for being a fundamentalist.ed: I am not claiming certainty. I am claiming inference to the best explanation. Scientists study the characteristics of effects everyday to determine their cause. By doing so, they can decide the most likely cause. And that is what I am doing with the universe, we study the characteristics of the universe such as having all the characteristics of an effect, therefore most likely it has a cause. Then you can look at more of its characteristics to determine characteristics of that cause.
g4: Scientists do not conclude that the universe must have a cause, and those who entertain the possibility do not restrict such a cause to something resembling what apologists are arguing for.
I would not say so unless in case one you can provide empirical evidence that something can be generated from nothing. In case two, you need to account for the source of the particles or the forces. Please proceed.OK, here is one: Maybe something equivalent to a quantum effect triggered a huge Big Bang out of nothing.
What the hey, I will give you two.
Perhaps there were an infinite number of particles in an infinite space. These particles or the forces that lead to them could have always existed. At times, something akin to a black hole pulls enough of these particles together that they explode out in a Big Bang. We happen to live in the result of one of those Big Bangs.
What do you think? Are these better than The Argument from Flying Balls?
I have never been hostile to you.
You just confirmed much of my experience with atheists, hostility as well.
Well, which way is it?
"All empirical matter" is basically the observable universe. It basically includes all that is within our Hubble Sphere, that is, all that is close enough to us that light from that object has had time to reach us.
"All that started with the Big Bang" could be much more, and could include stars outside our Hubble sphere. These stars, if they exist, are so far away, and space is stretching so fast, that their light could not possibly reach us.
In fact the universe started by the Big Bang could be infinite. We don't know. If it is infinite, there could be an infinite number of planet earths out there that have an identical thread on their Christian Forums on their Internet.
If so, in some of those earths, Paulomycin may respond to this post with a logical response. What are the odds of that?
It happens all the time. See Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light - Scientific American.I would not say so unless in case one you can provide empirical evidence that something can be generated from nothing.
In case two, you need to account for the source of the particles or the forces. Please proceed.
Yes. But the statement that causal relationships exist in reality is a synthetic proposition, and it is this proposition that acts as a premise in cosmological arguments.No, the statement "Every effect has an antecedent cause." is analytically true. Just like the statement "A bachelor is an unmarried man." Or "two plus two are four." Aristotle has classified six causes. The cause we are discussing here is the "efficient cause."
It’s not logic that’s being doubted here, it’s metaphysical claims about reality. In fact, it’s a logical fallacy — the fallacy of composition — to presume that because components of the universe work in a certain way, the entire universe itself must work in that way as well.As I stated earlier, many years ago we were not sure logic worked in outer space, but we made the rational assumption that it did and it was later confirmed that it did with space travel. So also, we are not certain that logic works "outside" the universe, but it is rational to assume it does until proven someday.
Publishing data that strongly indicated the existence of God would be incredibly lucrative. They’d instantly have the support and funding of massive religious institutions, and the scientific community at large would have a new rich vein of study to investigate. The fact that no scientist has come forward with such data isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just good skepticism.Actually some have and do. Such as Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking (before he became an atheist), Arno Penzias, and several others I could name. But of course, most are not going to claim it is the Christian God because they would be ostracized and probably fired for being a fundamentalist.
When did I misquote you?Which is why I was saying other Christians are more hostile.
I've not been hostile with you. Just a bit insulting because it's difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who is unable to understand what is being said. And when you misquote me, I don't like that very much.
Collecting stamps? Boring. I come here and collect conversations with people that talk nonsense. Now that's an interesting hobby.
"All that started with the Big Bang" could be much more, and could include stars outside our Hubble sphere. These stars, if they exist, are so far away, and space is stretching so fast, that their light could not possibly reach us.
In fact the universe started by the Big Bang could be infinite.
Or our universe could have begun at quantum length (much smaller than an electron). In this case our current physics breaks down, but mathematics still works. I think our space-time still would exist. Before that, an event such as a Big Crunch of a previous universe could have happened.
None of this is the same as the steady state theory, which postulated an infinite static universe that always existed in essentially the same form.
Does God have order? If so, then who was his orderer?
Did you learn that tactic in a schoolyard?
What would a universe that definitely does have a God in it look like?
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?