- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,219
- 3,838
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Can you expand on that?
Upvote
0
Can you expand on that?
Shemjaza said:Can you expand on that?
Shemjaza said:Tell me if I am not following you here.
While it is true that either the universe has an external cause or it does not, the statement that it needs one is an unjustified assertion.
The universe's beginning is a mystery, but adding another even more mysterious layer of reality to make the universe less mysterious has not been justified.
To paraphrase an unconvincing argument argument against atheism I've seen presented: "A God who wanted to create us and our universe can't just have happened to exist conveniently to create us... he must have been created by a god-god."
Ophiolite said:Thank you.
Ophiolite said:One of the primary functions of a discussion forum is to explore personal thinking. A simple yes, or no would have sufficed. I deliberately put the "broadly" in there to ensure that option was feasible, if you had answered it I might have been able to make sense of the various points in your post. I could also have taken a stab at trying to answer your question(s).
If you decide you actually want to discuss things then just answer the question, then I'll play.
Not yet. I have reread several posts in this thread as a prelude to answering the questions. I've done this more than once. I hadn't given up trying to make sense of posts, but I currently feel quite lost. Perhaps you could post the specific questions or question that are of interest to you and I'll then do my best to reply.And yet still you haven't.
My assertion is that everything of the universe existing really exists. Something of existence necessarily exists. If this were not so, there would have been really nothing, nonexistence, and there is no way all the universe, or anything at all, could come from true nonexistence. The only choice you have, logically, is existence came into being from nonexistence before it without any cause, which I say is ridiculous, or there is existence that is necessary existence, with existing necessarily, this existence is without limit and always exists, without beginning and without ever ending. Coming up with a claim of another option you call Mystery is not another choice for this logic, it is only the one or the other.
For the answer to you, you posted this:
No, you did not at all follow. Though it is seen I do have belief in God, that is not what I brought into discussion. It is not relevant to the point if you answer about what you think about a god or a god-god.
My assertion is that everything of the universe existing really exists. Something of existence necessarily exists. If this were not so, there would have been really nothing, nonexistence, and there is no way all the universe, or anything at all, could come from true nonexistence. The only choice you have, logically, is existence came into being from nonexistence before it without any cause, which I say is ridiculous, or there is existence that is necessary existence, with existing necessarily, this existence is without limit and always exists, without beginning and without ever ending. Coming up with a claim of another option you call Mystery is not another choice for this logic, it is only the one or the other.
Ophiolite said:I said to @FredVB , "if you had answered it I might have been able to make sense of the various points in your post. I could also have taken a stab at trying to answer your question(s)."
I have reread several posts in this thread as a prelude to answering the questions. I've done this more than once. I hadn't given up trying to make sense of posts, but I currently feel quite lost. Perhaps you could post the specific questions or question that are of interest to you and I'll then do my best to reply.
FredVB said:I believe, which is what is asked in this topic, that there are evidences of consequences on the earth, as well as in organisms, while these are really interpreted in different ways depending on worldview and perspective. Indeed, with the worldview and perspective you come with, what evidences you consider and bring up do not verify conclusions to many others, including me. I still can respect you with your conclusions though they do not convince me.
Yttrium said:Actually, there is another possibility: that the known universe came from an internal cause. That is, the universe has always existed, just not in the form that we currently recognize. I'm not advocating that possibility, mind you, I'm just pointing it out. Personally, I would tend to agree with an external first cause.
Shemjaza said:Okay, I think I did follow you.
When I said "mystery" I wasn't making a third choice, I was pointing out that actual beginning of the universe is unknown.
You are using the term "logic" but it appears you are just stating what you personally find more appealing.
Why is existence coming from true nonexistence "ridiculous"?
Why is it reasonable for "existence is without limit and always exists, without beginning and without ever ending" and given that you accept that something can exist without beginning and end, why can't that be used to apply to this existence we live in?
So you see, it isn't just one or another:
* This existence came out of nowhere
* This existence has always existed in some form or another
* This existence has an external cause, that external cause came out of nowhere
* This existence has an external cause, that external cause has always existed
* This existence was caused by an earlier existence which was caused by an earlier existence which was caused by an earlier existence which was caused by an earlier existence, etc
These are not a complete list.
I'm personally not asserting which is true and possible, but I have not seen consistent and coherent logic or evidence that removes doubt.
If you have logic, please present your reasoning... not just inconsistently applied arguments that reinforce your spiritual preferences.
Personally I don't know, and I think the reasonable thing to do when you don't know is defer judgement.
I had originally posted this.
After this respectful post, I was confronted with comments that, according to your statements afterwards about my response to those, were with uncalled for offensiveness to me. So to start with, why? What justifies that? I say I have my worldview and perspective, I still can respect you with your conclusions though they do not convince me. I said I am still open to things that have me think differently, as I have had changing views. So why is the logic I show dismissed? What basis is there, that is supposed to change my mind, and justified the responses to me? I don't believe that mocking my understanding was justified, prove to me then why I am wrong.
Okay, but that is not another possibility from what I had posted of the logic, that as there is existence there is then necessary existence, what you show here agrees with that, whether it is said that necessary existence is contained in the universe, or it is said that necessary existence is external to it. I only said elsewhere that the universe had a beginning and is not unlimited, that would have it be disqualified from containing necessary existence only within it, as necessary existence always exists and has no limit, as this existence is necessary
No, you are not following. It is logic, which stands regardless of what still remains unknown. If you followed you would not have paraphrased it as you did.
You would have us think it is possible that there was truly absolutely no existence, and the existence of the universe with us and all it contains could come into being from nothing previously. It is not going to convince me. My reason from what I still say is logic that there is existence that is necessary, and so always existed and exists without limit, which explains the universe with us and all it contains, still stands without basis to me for dismissing it.
No, you are not following. It is logic, which stands regardless of what still remains unknown. If you followed you would not have paraphrased it as you did.
"You would have us think it is possible that there was truly absolutely no existence"You would have us think it is possible that there was truly absolutely no existence, and the existence of the universe with us and all it contains could come into being from nothing previously. It is not going to convince me. My reason from what I still say is logic that there is existence that is necessary, and so always existed and exists without limit, which explains the universe with us and all it contains, still stands without basis to me for dismissing it.
FredVB said:Okay, but that is not another possibility from what I had posted of the logic, that as there is existence there is then necessary existence, what you show here agrees with that, whether it is said that necessary existence is contained in the universe, or it is said that necessary existence is external to it. I only said elsewhere that the universe had a beginning and is not unlimited, that would have it be disqualified from containing necessary existence only within it, as necessary existence always exists and has no limit, as this existence is necessary
It is logic, which stands regardless of what still remains unknown. My reason from what I still say is logic, that there is existence that is necessary, and so always existed and exists without limit, which explains the universe with us and all it contains, still stands without basis to me for dismissing it.
VirOptimus said:You dont seem to grasp the difference between science and metaphysics.
I never have spoken against science and data in this discussion, and I am not in the habit of doing so. It is just avoiding real logic to say we don't have an explanation, with having just brought up this logic, either there was always something that was enough for having all the universe, or there was not always something that was enough for having all the universe, which means we have it from nothing. There are no other alternatives in this logic, and it is avoiding this to just say, we don't have an explanation. Science won't show it, but you don't need science for the logic, you need logic for the science.
Shemjaza said:If it's logic, explain the reasoning. I pointed out the gaps, can you explain them?
"You would have us think it is possible that there was truly absolutely no existence"
Isn't it? Why not?
You are comfortable with "existence that is necessary", but have't justified why it needs to be separate or even exist.
"I still say is logic that there is existence that is necessary"
Yes, you still say it. And you prefer it. Why?
If you can't explain reasoning, then it isn't logic, it's just a personal preference.
As I had said:
Science is an adequate approach for what it can show. What you say, which has been little since I have posted, goes outside of science with your thoughts. I know science would not show things for that, yet we have logic that can be used, that we need for science as well.
It is just as simple as arithmetic, if that wasn't considered. 0+0=0, 0x0=0, and 0+0+0+0+0=0, and no matter how many times more you do the operation, with only zero you still will have only zero. If there had always been no existence at all, there is no reason for there to be the existence that brings the universe we know is there into being.
As there is existence, there could never have been nonexistence only before it, and with nothing acting existence then coming into being. I don't see belief that existence would be from nothing, and this even for explaining all the universe with us and everything in it, is really with more basis than belief in magic. So it is logical, as I say, to understand that there was always existence, and there is necessary existence then, regardless if our finite selves cannot explain that, and necessary existence would not have limits. If you say the universe had no beginning, always exists, and has no limits whatsoever, it could be said that the universe is that necessary existence. Yet the universe is widely understood now to have had a beginning, and it has many distinct individual parts that are not limitless and are not showing that they exist necessarily.
Ophiolite said:I said to @FredVB , "if you had answered it I might have been able to make sense of the various points in your post. I could also have taken a stab at trying to answer your question(s)."
I have reread several posts in this thread as a prelude to answering the questions. I've done this more than once. I hadn't given up trying to make sense of posts, but I currently feel quite lost. Perhaps you could post the specific questions or question that are of interest to you and I'll then do my best to reply.
It is just as simple as arithmetic, if that wasn't considered. 0+0=0, 0x0=0, and 0+0+0+0+0=0, and no matter how many times more you do the operation, with only zero you still will have only zero. If there had always been no existence at all, there is no reason for there to be the existence that brings the universe we know is there into being. As there is existence, there could never have been nonexistence only before it, and with nothing acting existence then coming into being.
VirOptimus said:....Only assertions, and faulty logic. Yawn.
Ophiolite said:You must be very, very smart to say this with such confidence; or, potentially, very, very wrong.
I understand the mathematical axioms... I've seen no evidence that it applies to universes or God.It is just as simple as arithmetic, if that wasn't considered. 0+0=0, 0x0=0, and 0+0+0+0+0=0, and no matter how many times more you do the operation, with only zero you still will have only zero. If there had always been no existence at all, there is no reason for there to be the existence that brings the universe we know is there into being.
As there is existence, there could never have been nonexistence only before it, and with nothing acting existence then coming into being. I don't see belief that existence would be from nothing, and this even for explaining all the universe with us and everything in it, is really with more basis than belief in magic. So it is logical, as I say, to understand that there was always existence, and there is necessary existence then, regardless if our finite selves cannot explain that, and necessary existence would not have limits. If you say the universe had no beginning, always exists, and has no limits whatsoever, it could be said that the universe is that necessary existence. Yet the universe is widely understood now to have had a beginning, and it has many distinct individual parts that are not limitless and are not showing that they exist necessarily.
You need to demonstrate that the simple math you have presented actually applies.Is it claimed that there is something wrong, or faulty, with the math, or is it that some atheist people are really dismissive, or obtuse, to consider and address it? There was vitriolic response to what I said originally, and nothing ever posted showing how anything I said was really wrong, and just suggesting a lack of education on my part, which isn't really addressing what I have said. Why should I think differently, when nothing in any response shows why I should? I see only what is necessarily existing is explaining existence. How is it shown that it would be otherwise?
Shemjaza said:I understand the mathematical axioms... I've seen no evidence that it applies to universes or God.
We don't know how the universe started, in fact we don't even know it did. The time zero before the big bang is a complete mystery and may in fact be unknowable.
You need to demonstrate that the simple math you have presented actually applies.
You haven't done that. There are a multitude of physical processes in the current day universe that behave in a completely alien way to conventional understanding, so confident, unevidenced declarations that the formation of a universe is as simple as 1 + 2 seems completely unreasonable.
(Also, please stop playing the victim about people taking offense when you deliberately to offend an entire group. It's silly and unbecoming of adult conversation.)
Why? Why would mathematics not apply? Though there are processes alien to conventional understanding, where is it that mathematics is not applying? Mathematics is foundational, there is claim in it of it being universal. Where is it known to not apply? That should be shown if there is claim of that, rather than a demonstration being needed that mathematics does apply. Mystery is no reason to dismiss it.
Why, when this was something aimed at me first, and I know it, and no one is owning that? I was not offending anyone first, I directly posted a response to the question the topic of this thread raises, and that would have been it. But that wasn't it, as this forum area of "CHRISTIAN FORUMS" is being occupied by the atheists who come here. Why? Why are any of you here on Christian Forums to accuse Christian believers? You have forums already for your communication, right? I don't go to forums that are about what I disagree with, I don't know that any others are doing that. I go to forums to communicate with others with whom I have something that is clearly in common with them. In other forums there is a word for any such who would go to the forums that are about what they disagree with to argue.
It is not that I cannot go on with basis for what I say shown here on Christian Forums.
You are not being disagreed with nor are your arguments being criticized because you are a Christian. Those of us who criticize your arguments or disagree with you are not all atheists. Get over it.Why, when this was something aimed at me first, and I know it, and no one is owning that? I was not offending anyone first, I directly posted a response to the question the topic of this thread raises, and that would have been it. But that wasn't it, as this forum area of "CHRISTIAN FORUMS" is being occupied by the atheists who come here. Why? Why are any of you here on Christian Forums to accuse Christian believers? You have forums already for your communication, right? I don't go to forums that are about what I disagree with, I don't know that any others are doing that. I go to forums to communicate with others with whom I have something that is clearly in common with them. In other forums there is a word for any such who would go to the forums that are about what they disagree with to argue.
It is not that I cannot go on with basis for what I say shown here on Christian Forums.
What you are saying is that you generally avoid those who have a different world view and seek out those who are like minded. In contrast most of the atheists here, and many of the Christians, are deliberately exposing themselves to alternate opinions and looking to engage with those who think differently. Why?Why are any of you here on Christian Forums to accuse Christian believers? You have forums already for your communication, right? I don't go to forums that are about what I disagree with, I don't know that any others are doing that. I go to forums to communicate with others with whom I have something that is clearly in common with them. In other forums there is a word for any such who would go to the forums that are about what they disagree with to argue.
Why? Why would mathematics not apply? Though there are processes alien to conventional understanding, where is it that mathematics is not applying? Mathematics is foundational, there is claim in it of it being universal. Where is it known to not apply? That should be shown if there is claim of that, rather than a demonstration being needed that mathematics does apply. Mystery is no reason to dismiss it.
Spare me the petulance.Why, when this was something aimed at me first, and I know it, and no one is owning that? I was not offending anyone first, I directly posted a response to the question the topic of this thread raises, and that would have been it. But that wasn't it, as this forum area of "CHRISTIAN FORUMS" is being occupied by the atheists who come here. Why? Why are any of you here on Christian Forums to accuse Christian believers? You have forums already for your communication, right? I don't go to forums that are about what I disagree with, I don't know that any others are doing that. I go to forums to communicate with others with whom I have something that is clearly in common with them. In other forums there is a word for any such who would go to the forums that are about what they disagree with to argue.
It is not that I cannot go on with basis for what I say shown here on Christian Forums.
@VirOptimus and @Shemjaza have expressed my thinking on this at least as clearly as I could have done and probably much better. I shall let their answers stand for me.Why? Why would mathematics not apply? Though there are processes alien to conventional understanding, where is it that mathematics is not applying? Mathematics is foundational, there is claim in it of it being universal. Where is it known to not apply? That should be shown if there is claim of that, rather than a demonstration being needed that mathematics does apply. Mystery is no reason to dismiss it.