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.
Their effects.
Things that do not exist do not typically create things like universes etc.
But then again, you knew that.
Is the fact 2+2=4 in time and space, is it material? I think not.
Does that fact exist? Yes!
The difference from a God that exists and one that doesn't? Only one of them can create a universe.
It's no fun arguing against a chorus of "you can't be sure,"
so I'll let those who want to remain atheists do so.
If only Christians were as religious as atheists
(doubting God on online forums seems to be atheists' outlet for their religious impulses)!
Maybe I'm just being annoying now. I'll read up more like Archie said before bringing up the cosmological argument here again. Just for the record it's no less convincing to me now.
Their effects.
Things that do not exist do not typically create things like universes etc.
But then again, you knew that.
Yes it does, in context. The current "Big Bang" theory is really the "Cosmic Egg" theory of Georges Lemaitre. To be more precise: Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; 17 July 1894 20 June 1966) Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the French section of the Catholic University of Leuven. This was the scientist who proposed what is now known as the "Big Bang" theory. Now, does it imply a deity? Sir Fred Hoyle certainly thought so and went to great lengths - wasting a good deal of his life - to prove it false. And failing, utterly.Archaeopteryx said:But in what way is its purpose to get rid of Goddidit? A start, or a beginning, doesn't imply a deity anyway.
Yes it does, in context. The current "Big Bang" theory is really the "Cosmic Egg" theory of Georges Lemaitre. To be more precise: Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; 17 July 1894 20 June 1966) Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the French section of the Catholic University of Leuven. This was the scientist who proposed what is now known as the "Big Bang" theory. Now, does it imply a deity? Sir Fred Hoyle certainly thought so and went to great lengths - wasting a good deal of his life - to prove it false. And failing, utterly.
Here's the nub of it: The specific moment of beginning sounds too much like the Genesis account. Not to mention the theory was proposed by "Monseigneur..."
And physical things are not typically created by non-physical things.
I think his comment was gesturing toward the causal closure principle, made popular by Jaegwon Kim. Our vast body of collective experiences has only supported physical effects having physical causes. Thus, it seems to be reasonable to ask how it is that we would know the cause for a given effect was something non-physical.
The causal closure principle is inductive, and is prone to all the problems of induction, but it seems to be a relatively strong argument.
Do you have a citation for that? My understanding is that he found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be 'pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"'.
Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How do you measure the effects of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial thing?
Viking gods that don't exist do not typically create things like thunder etc.
You have yet to establish that the universe existing is an effect of a supernatural cause. But then again, you knew that.
If it is not physical, and not material, what is it?The creation of the universe ex nihilo was anything but typical.
We know a cause for a given effect is non-physical if the effect is all matter, energy, and the space-time manifold itself i.e. the universe.
A material cause could not possibly be the explanation for the creation of all matter.
If it is not physical, and not material, what is it?
Define "spirit".
No definition, and you have circled back to telling me what it isn't. Will you keep going in circles if we continue?On the contrary, It is written in the Gospel of St. John (John 4:24): "God is a spirit."
I answer that, It is absolutely true that God is not a body; and this can be shown in three ways.
First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (2, 3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body.
Secondly, because the first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality. For although in any single thing that passes from potentiality to actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality. Now it has been already proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in potentiality because the continuous, as such, is divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body.
Thirdly, because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is impossible for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler than any inanimate body. But an animate body is not animate precisely as body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body.
On the contrary, Whatever is composed of matter and form is a body; for dimensive quantity is the first property of matter. But God is not a body as proved in the preceding Article; therefore He is not composed of matter and form.
I answer that, It is impossible that matter should exist in God.
First, because matter is in potentiality. But we have shown (I:2:3) that God is pure act, without any potentiality. Hence it is impossible that God should be composed of matter and form.
Secondly, because everything composed of matter and form owes its perfection and goodness to its form; therefore its goodness is participated, inasmuch as matter participates the form. Now the first good and the best--viz. God--is not a participated good, because the essential good is prior to the participated good. Hence it is impossible that God should be composed of matter and form.
Thirdly, because every agent acts by its form; hence the manner in which it has its form is the manner in which it is an agent. Therefore whatever is primarily and essentially an agent must be primarily and essentially form. Now God is the first agent, since He is the first efficient cause. He is therefore of His essence a form; and not composed of matter and form.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
No definition, and you have circled back to telling me what it isn't. Will you keep going in circles if we continue?
Telling me that an apple is not motor oil does not define an apple.Instead of actually dealing with what I supplied, you say "no definition..."
I expected as much.Thanks for the invitation to to do something I have already done, but I humbly decline.
Yes it does, in context. The current "Big Bang" theory is really the "Cosmic Egg" theory of Georges Lemaitre. To be more precise: Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; 17 July 1894 20 June 1966) Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the French section of the Catholic University of Leuven. This was the scientist who proposed what is now known as the "Big Bang" theory. Now, does it imply a deity? Sir Fred Hoyle certainly thought so and went to great lengths - wasting a good deal of his life - to prove it false. And failing, utterly.
Here's the nub of it: The specific moment of beginning sounds too much like the Genesis account. Not to mention the theory was proposed by "Monseigneur..."
Well, the Kalam has been presented here and undoubtedly you have found it unconvincing. Which premise of the argument do you reject and why?
Which premise of the Leibnizian do you reject and why?
Care to debate me on it some time?
Which premise of the Teleological argument do you reject and why?
Telling me that an apple is not motor oil does not define an apple.
It would be too long for me to go into detail about what I find wrong about each of those. Consider why you reject the argument for the Divine Flame and you are already partway towards an answer to at least one of your questions.
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?