Only two options for the origin of the universe

[Archaeopteryx]

lol....

you have been arguing that the principle "being cannot come from nonbeing" does not apply to the universe.

why is this not the same as saying the universe comes from nonbeing or no cause?

No, I have not been arguing that. Once again, you really shouldn't be telling people what they are arguing. You always get it wrong.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No, I have not been arguing that. Once again, you really shouldn't be telling people what they are arguing. You always get it wrong.

so you agree then that being cannot come from nonbeing?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

so you agree then that being cannot come from nonbeing?

In the universe, yes. Whether that applies in the absence of a universe, we don't know. We don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate, and we don't even know whether nothingness was ever a real state of affairs.

In any case, do you agree that being cannot come from nonbeing? If so, then what basis do you have for believing in the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo?

 

[quatona]

You have a reference for your claim that the causal principle only pertains to ex materia creation?

I have asked you why you think this several times and you keep rephrasing your response.

He didn´t say that. He said it need not apply.
It´s a priniciple observed as pertaining to interaction of energy and matter. Since your own "explanation" thrives on the assumption that principles observed within the universe needn´t apply to the universe, you are very familiar with this thought.
So it would be up to you to explain this obvious inconsistency in your line of reasoning.
Simply declaring a principle observed in the presence of time, space, matter, energy a "metaphysical principle" doesn´t make it so.

 

[Davian]

Telling you that an apple is not motor oil tells you what an apple is not.

Telling you that God is Spirit and that this means that He is immaterial tells you, among other things, that God is pure actuality, not subject to the second law of thermodynamics, simple i.e. indivisible, infinite and eternal....just to name a few.

No, telling me it is "immaterial" only tells me it is "not material". Around in circles you go.

Right now I am eating dinner and then afterwards I will be laying down to rest. If I do not speak to you before Christmas, I want to wish you and yours a happy holiday.

With love,

Jeremy

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Telescopes, rulers, measuring tapes, etc. etc.

Cool, so I take it that you can show me a picture of the spaceless, timeless, immaterial entity that you believe exists?

I agree.

You lost me.

So, you agree that your argument was silly?

 

[DogmaHunter]

...the causal principle need not apply, since it describes the interaction of matter in spacetime, not its creation from nothing.

Why think this?

The answer to your question is in the very quote you are replying to.

That's what causality is: it describes a phenomena within space-time. The phenomena is pretty much dependend on space-time. It could not work without it. You need a flow of events. Causes happen before effects. When time doesn't exist, this flow of events can't exist.

You can't use phenomena that need a universe to exist to try and explain something that happened when no universe existed. You get that, right?

 

[poolerboy0077]

Guys, I think there are only two options in the universe:

Either there is a God and Her name is Oprah Winfrey

OR

There is no God and Mary was His mother.
​

 

[DogmaHunter]

ok good. present these various philosophical arguments for this Divine Flame so I can have a look at them.

Just take every argument you know of for god(s) and replace "god" with "divine flame".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The answer to your question is in the very quote you are replying to.

That's what causality is: it describes a phenomena within space-time. The phenomena is pretty much dependend on space-time. It could not work without it. You need a flow of events. Causes happen before effects. When time doesn't exist, this flow of events can't exist.

You can't use phenomena that need a universe to exist to try and explain something that happened when no universe existed. You get that, right?

It's interesting that the cosmological argument should appeal to the very principle it demands exemption from. The apologist gestures toward our worldly experience in support of the first premise, but by the time he reaches the conclusion, the terms 'cause' and 'begins to exist' take on quite a different form.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just take every argument you know of for god(s) and replace "god" with "divine flame".

Probably not every argument. The moral argument, for example, doesn't seem to fit well with the Divine Flame explanation. However, there are other reasons why the moral argument is dubious anyway.

The point of it is simply to show that other supernatural explanations are available and, given what we currently know, they are as well supported as the explanation apologists settle on by virtue of their pre-existing theological commitments. An apologist who is committed to Flame theology can just as easily wield the argument for his own purposes as one who is committed to a personal creator deity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

He didn´t say that. He said it need not apply.
It´s a priniciple observed as pertaining to interaction of energy and matter. Since your own "explanation" thrives on the assumption that principles observed within the universe needn´t apply to the universe, you are very familiar with this thought.
So it would be up to you to explain this obvious inconsistency in your line of reasoning.
Simply declaring a principle observed in the presence of time, space, matter, energy a "metaphysical principle" doesn´t make it so.

Even if we suppose that it is a metaphysical principle, similar problems still arise. As Scott Clifton pointed out in an excellent video on the topic, unless one cherry-picks from experience, one is left with the conclusion that the universe must have had both an efficient and a material cause, which is contrary to the doctrine of Creation, according to which God created the universe from nothing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I believe there are only two logically possible options for the origin of the universe. One is that matter and energy are eternal; either each universe causes the next or a multiverse is constantly creating and reabsorbing universes. The other option is that an eternal being possessing volition and intelligence has caused our universe (and possibly but not necessarily other universes).

There is a third alternative. That time/change has a beginning, even though physical reality does not (it never "popped" into existence from a prior nothingness.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's interesting that the cosmological argument should appeal to the very principle it demands exemption from.

Yeah, the argument has many problems. Special pleading is just one of them.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

In the universe, yes. Whether that applies in the absence of a universe, we don't know. We don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate, and we don't even know whether nothingness was ever a real state of affairs.

In any case, do you agree that being cannot come from nonbeing? If so, then what basis do you have for believing in the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo?

First off, nothingness cannot be investigated. Nothingness possesses no properties subject to investigation.

Nothingness is not a state of affairs. Nothingness possesses no properties that would be labeled states of affairs.

Therefore from nothing, nothing comes. From nonbeing being does not come.

So does the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo contradict the causal principle. No.

For (A) It is not possible for something to come from nothing...is not contradicted by (creation out of nothing), for only in the case of creation is there a cause which brings the relevant object into being.

Creatio ex nihilo stands in contrast to:

(B) nothing causing something

which contradicts (A)

Creatio ex nihilo is the idea that God (an efficient cause) brings the universe into being without playing around with pre-existing matter.

Some people believed that God and matter were co-eternal. That Matter existed eternally and God existed eternally and they saw God as taking some lumps of matter and fashioning them into a universe. This view is contradicted by contemporary cosmology and affirmed by the Genesis account of creation written thousands of years before man possessed the means to draw these inferences through science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First off, nothingness cannot be investigated. Nothingness possesses no properties subject to investigation.

Nothingness is not a state of affairs. Nothingness possesses no properties that would be labeled states of affairs.

Therefore from nothing, nothing comes.

Are we having a state-the-obvious contest?

Non-existing oranges do not exist. Whooptie doo.

So does the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo contradict the causal principle. No.

For (A) It is not possible for something to come from nothing...is not contradicted by (creation out of nothing), for only in the case of creation is there a cause which brings the relevant object into being.

I don't even know what to respond. It's that nonsensical. I see english words composed into sentences, but there is no substance or meaning that I can see.
Perhaps you would like to clear it up a little?

Creatio ex nihilo stands in contrast to:
(B) nothing causing something
which contradicts (A)

Creatio ex nihilo is the idea that God (an efficient cause) brings the universe into being without playing around with pre-existing matter.

"Abracadabra: POOF!" then, I guess?

So how did a timeless, immaterial, spaceless being that "exists" in a timeless, and spaceless realm, engage in an action (to create)/I]), which requires a series of steps / a flow of sequential events to be accomplished?

And also note that I'm bending over backwards by asking that question, since it assumes that a timeless, immaterial, spaceless being that can do anything at all actually exists. Which is something you haven't even come close to demonstrate or support.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First off, nothingness cannot be investigated. Nothingness possesses no properties subject to investigation.

Nothingness is not a state of affairs. Nothingness possesses no properties that would be labeled states of affairs.

My point was, quite simply, that we do not know whether philosophical nothingness is real or whether it is even possible, much less whether it preceded the universe.

Therefore from nothing, nothing comes. From nonbeing being does not come.

So does the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo contradict the causal principle. No.

For (A) It is not possible for something to come from nothing...is not contradicted by (creation out of nothing), for only in the case of creation is there a cause which brings the relevant object into being.

Creatio ex nihilo stands in contrast to:

(B) nothing causing something

which contradicts (A)

Creatio ex nihilo is the idea that God (an efficient cause) brings the universe into being without playing around with pre-existing matter.

How is that consistent with causality as we understand it? You are appealing to the causal principle on the one hand, but demanding exemption from it on the other so as to accommodate your preferred doctrine (creatio ex nihilo).

Some people believed that God and matter were co-eternal. That Matter existed eternally and God existed eternally and they saw God as taking some lumps of matter and fashioning them into a universe. This view is contradicted by contemporary cosmology and affirmed by the Genesis account of creation written thousands of years before man possessed the means to draw these inferences through science.[/I][/I][/SIZE][/FONT]

No, contemporary cosmology doesn't necessarily imply a creatio ex nihilo event, much less Goddidit.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Probably not every argument. The moral argument, for example, doesn't seem to fit well with the Divine Flame explanation. However, there are other reasons why the moral argument is dubious anyway.

The point of it is simply to show that other supernatural explanations are available and, given what we currently know, they are as well supported as the explanation apologists settle on by virtue of their pre-existing theological commitments. An apologist who is committed to Flame theology can just as easily wield the argument for his own purposes as one who is committed to a personal creator deity.

Correct. The Kalam is not an exclusively Christian argument. In fact it was a Muslim who framed it.

If one agrees with it, it is enough to move them from atheism to some form of theism. From there I bring in other arguments for Christian theism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Correct. The Kalam is not an exclusively Christian argument. In fact it was a Muslim who framed it.

If one agrees with it, it is enough to move them from atheism to some form of theism. From there I bring in other arguments for Christian theism.

No, if one agrees with the basic form of the Kalam one simply agrees that the universe had a cause; that's the conclusion, and it does not necessarily imply theism of any form. To go from "Therefore, the universe had a cause" to "God created the universe" is a non sequitur, which is why the Kalam is usually supplemented by additional statements that describe the nature and identity of the cause as the God of the theist's particular theology. That is why I can wield the argument for my own purposes to argue for the Divine Flame.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No, if one agrees with the basic form of the Kalam one simply agrees that the universe had a cause; that's the conclusion, and it does not necessarily imply theism of any form. To go from "Therefore, the universe had a cause" to "God created the universe" is a non sequitur, which is why the Kalam is usually supplemented by additional statements that describe the nature and identity of the cause as the God of the theist's particular theology. That is why I can wield the argument for my own purposes to argue for the Divine Flame.

correct. you could use it to argue for the divine flame. and then i would argue that God is a better explanation by using supplementary arguments and evidence to support my claim.