anonymous person
Well-Known Member
No.
A turtle is a material being existing in time and space and therefore could not have brought all matter all energy and spactime itself into existence.
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.
So it's turtles all the way down?
Turtles all the way down - WikipediaNo.
A turtle is a material being existing in time and space and therefore could not have brought all matter all energy and spactime itself into existence.
Right.
You didn't answer my question. Do you have evidence that the only possible non-deity scenarios regarding the origins of the universe are the ones you're currently describing?
Because if there's any non-deity scenarios beyond what you're describing, you'll have to list all of them and the reasons why they can't be possible in order to postulate that the only other possible remaining answer would be a deity related scenario.
You would, of course, also have to show that a deity is possible...
So, good luck with that.
Right.
Since we know positing an infinite regress of causes is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe and that the principle of parsimony enjoins us to only posit that which is necessary to sufficiently explain something, we are left with a necessarily existing efficient cause of the universe.
I have eliminated those hypotheses which are necessarily false by virtue of them being logically incoherent.Because you've eliminated the solution of all other possible scenarios?
It seems to me to be self-evident as the laws of logic, or the metaphysical principle that from nothing, nothing comes that either something exists as the result of something else which brought it into existence or that something exists necessarily in that the explanation for its existence is in its very nature.
If you do not agree with that, or if that is not self-evident to you, there is little I or anyone else can do to help you understand this.
I have eliminated those hypotheses which are necessarily false by virtue of them being logically incoherent.
Said no one, ever.Right.
Since we know positing an infinite regress of causes is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe and that the principle of parsimony enjoins us to only posit that which is necessary to sufficiently explain something, we are left with a necessarily existing efficient cause of the universe.
You still didn't answer my question:
Do you have evidence that the only possible non-deity scenarios regarding the origins of the universe are the ones you're currently describing?
Hint: You're leaving out a scenario that doesn't include a cause.
Also, the whole "if that is not self-evident to you, there is little I or anyone else can do to help you understand this" line is, of course disingenuous. I think everyone can see that. Someone employing actual Philosophy never uses this tactic, they state why something is, instead of just asserting something as "self evident".
Don't be sloppy.
Said no one, ever.
1. The universe created itselfList all of them, so we know that your assertion that a deity had to be involved is more than simply incredulity.
Ha.William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, and theologian. His principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Hence we have Ockham's Razor.
Richard Swinburne:
....the simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis, that its predictions are more likely to be true than those of any other available hypothesis, and that it is an ultimate a priori epistemic principle that simplicity is evidence for truth.
— Swinburne 1997
Mindlight is definitely right about one thing, if atheistic materialism is true then you don't have free will and cannot even engage in argument or science, because all your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, and not on the weighing of evidence or logical reasoning.Sometimes I wonder how you guys come up with all these alleged laws - other than simply very much wanting a God to exist.
Now, if you feel the existence of e.g. a rock needs to be "justified" by a "greater thing", then be it.
The first question here, however, would be: What "greater thing" is the thing in question contingent on instead of jumping to conclusions. (And, btw., a unspecifically valuing term like "greater" isn´t really that usable for such an argument).
Yeah, determinism and freewillism are incompatible, by definition.
You don´t need to invoke deities for pointing that out, and there´s no need to blame such a contradiction on the lack of belief in a deity - especially since the existence of a deity wouldn´t render determinism and freewillism compatible.
Then let´s hope you will find some of these "most" guys here, so that you can discuss it with them.
So, no free will = no logic.Mindlight is definitely right about one thing, if atheistic materialism is true then you don't have free will and cannot even engage in argument or science, because all your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, and not on the weighing of evidence or logical reasoning.
I alluded to this earlier when I said that the universe either created itself or the universe comes into being from nothing without a cause. I alluded to this earlier. Both scenarios are logically incoherent and therefore untenable.
Whether or not I am disingenuous is really irrelevant to our discussion as to whether or not there is evidence for the supernatural.
What you are asking is akin to asking me if I have any evidence that would show that the laws of logic are binding.
If your recourse to my arguments and evidence is to attack these basic, fundamental, self-evident truths, then I would say, personally, that my evidence and arguments are better than I thought!
Mindlight is definitely right about one thing, if atheistic materialism is true then you don't have free will and cannot even engage in argument or science, because all your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, and not on the weighing of evidence or logical reasoning.
False dichotomy. You're missing at least two common scenarios that scientists have postulated. And even if you address those, the only way you can make your "non-black non-raven" type argument to work is if you can address all possible scenarios. If you can't, and I don't see how you can since scientists never say "here are the only possible scenarios for the universe's existence", then all you're doing is providing an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.
The fact the way you think is determined by the ratio of chemicals in your brain is in no way a reason to assume that they can´t be logical. It just doesn´t follow.Mindlight is definitely right about one thing, if atheistic materialism is true then you don't have free will and cannot even engage in argument or science, because all your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, and not on the weighing of evidence or logical reasoning.
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?