Only two options for the origin of the universe

[Conscious Z]

Their effects.

Things that do not exist do not typically create things like universes etc.

But then again, you knew that.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is the fact 2+2=4 in time and space, is it material? I think not.

"2+2=4" is not a thing that exists, let alone that it can do stuff.

Does that fact exist? Yes!

We aren't talking about mathematical facts.
We are talking about entities that might or might not exist.

The difference from a God that exists and one that doesn't? Only one of them can create a universe.

The difference between Thor existing and Thor not existing? Only one of them can create thunder and lightning.

It's no fun arguing against a chorus of "you can't be sure,"

Not if you insist on dogmatically believing a bronze age story on bad evidence.

so I'll let those who want to remain atheists do so.

I don't "want" to be an atheist, just like not believing Santa exists is a not a matter of "wanting to not believe it".

I'm an atheist because the arguments I need to accept to be a theist do not convince me. I have no good reason to accepts those claims, so I don't.

If only Christians were as religious as atheists

You need to believe something on faith to be religious.
What makes me atheist is precisely the fact that I don't consider faith to be a good thing.

(doubting God on online forums seems to be atheists' outlet for their religious impulses)!

Assuming the reasons and motivations for me being here without asking me, will probably not end up to be the actual reasons and motivations for me being here.

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.

Off course it's not less convincing. You made up your mind already.
That's the problem with dogmatic belief. When an argument is presented to you that doesn't agree with your beliefs, you assume the argument must be somehow wrong because your beliefs couldn't possibly be wrong...

I don't do dogmatic belief. I only do tentative belief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Their effects.

How do you measure the effects of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial thing?

Things that do not exist do not typically create things like universes etc.

Viking gods that don't exist do not typically create things like thunder etc.

But then again, you knew that.

You too.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

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..."

 

[Belk]

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..."

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

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

And physical things are not typically created by non-physical things.

The creation of the universe ex nihilo was anything but typical.

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.

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.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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

Yea Fred Hoyle did not like the idea of a cosmic genesis. For what reasons, I dare not attempt to presume.

His views about the universe were shown to be untenable and despite this, he died rejecting the findings of science.

Tisk...tisk....

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

How do you measure the effects of a spaceless, timeless and immaterial thing?

Telescopes, rulers, measuring tapes, etc. etc.

Viking gods that don't exist do not typically create things like thunder etc.

I agree.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You have yet to establish that the universe existing is an effect of a supernatural cause. But then again, you knew that.

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?

 

[Davian]

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?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If it is not physical, and not material, what is it?

Spirit.

 

[Davian]

Spirit.

Define "spirit".

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Define "spirit".

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

 

[Davian]

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?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No definition, and you have circled back to telling me what it isn't. Will you keep going in circles if we continue?

Instead of actually dealing with what I supplied, you say "no definition..."

Thanks for the invitation to to do something I have already done, but I humbly decline.

 

[Davian]

Instead of actually dealing with what I supplied, you say "no definition..."

Telling me that an apple is not motor oil does not define an apple.

Thanks for the invitation to to do something I have already done, but I humbly decline.

I expected as much.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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..."

How does a beginning imply a deity? I'm not seeing how it follows...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

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.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Telling me that an apple is not motor oil does not define an apple.

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.

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

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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.

Where is this argument for the Divine Flame at?

I would like to take a look at it.

I may be away from my work here for a while. If I do not talk to you before then, I would like to wish you and yours a happy holiday and happy New Year.

Maybe while I am away you can think about the Divine Flame argument and prepare it for me.

With love,

Jeremy