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.
I really hope you arent affirming this proposition.ReluctantProphet said:The simple statement that "God created Himself" should clue you into exactly who God must be.
Think about concepts. Spiritual minded people (not the fundamentalists) speak only in terms of concepts. What is the only conceptual "thing" that could cause itself? Does that thing have the properties of omnipresence, impossible to fool, impossible to escape, and impossible to avoid?JonF said:I really hope you aren’t affirming this proposition.
OObi said:1. Everything that has a biginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a biginning.
3. (Therefore) The universe had a cause.
It's very simple.
One is true to the point that gravity is true. We can't say for sure... but come on. Everything ever that we have witnessed has had a biginning. Nothing has ever just come into existance.
Two is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We know this because of the impossibilty of transversing a infinte amount (I don't know if that has a special name). But... I'll just use the domino analogy.
Therefore, having 2 been proven beyond doubt, and 1 being the most logical solution, 3 is true. That cause is God. Now don't get me wrong, at this point in time that cause could be anything supernatural, not neccesarilly God, but it is, and I'll just save that for another day.
No, I didn't disagree with your conclusion, but this is not your same argument, unless I'm misunderstanding you (which I didn't doubt until your last post)OObi said:Ummm... excuse my sarcasam, but isn't this my argument???
This is the very assertion under question so how can you presume it as premise?OObi said:Well, there can not be a infinte amount of regressions into the past.
I was referring to the amount of time from the beginning of each cycle (where ever you might choose that point in the cycle to be)OObi said:You say that it doesn't take an infinte amount of time to get to the point where you ask the question,..
When you make the statement that something "CAN NOT BE" as you have concerning the infinite past, then you are saying that absolutely no possibility can exist concerning the matter. Thus any possible even speculated scenario voids the impossibility theory.OObi said:Second of all, you started this one off well when you said suppose. There is no evidence at all for this, this is all pure speculation. No facts or evidence support this claim.
??? There can be no causes that require time??? Seriously lost me on that one. I have to pitch in with michabo on this and ask what it is that you are calling a "cause" (of course he doesnt want you to speak of semantics, so slip it in quick while he isnt looking)OObi said:.. There can be no causes that require time,
I don't know of anyone's definition of supernatural requiring an eternal nature.OObi said:.. there can only be causes that are eternal in nature. That is why we dub them "super-natural".
We agree on this point.OObi said:This argument doesn't necessarily prove the YHWH of the bible,..
Since you are talking about things being "outside of time", could I ask what you define "existence" as? What properties determine if something exists or does not exist?OObi said:And just for you, my defenition of supernatural is existing outside of time, eternal
We'll have to discuss this sometime. Logic states otherwise without question at all. But that doesn't mean that science hasn't proclaimed something different.tcampen said:And actually, there is some scientific/mathmatical evidence to suggest something can come from nothing.
Logic does nothing of the sort. Logic is a framework for building arguments; the content of the components, however, is not strictly a matter of logic.ReluctantProphet said:We'll have to discuss this sometime. Logic states otherwise without question at all.
Not knowing what you consider 'nothing,' I can't say if quantum/vacuum fluctuations count.But that doesn't mean that science hasn't proclaimed something different.
If I wanted to argue it here, I would have introduced a statement for such. If you want to clarify the issue, I would be glad to enter that discussion. But this thread is about proves for the existence of God or not.TeddyKGB said:Logic does nothing of the sort. Logic is a framework for building arguments; the content of the components, however, is not strictly a matter of logic. ... Not knowing what you consider 'nothing,' I can't say if quantum/vacuum fluctuations count.
Can you tell me something, anything, which begins to exist?
What is its cause?
So, can you think of anything which has a begining comparable enough to the begining of the universe to allow this argument to proceed? If you want to stick to your building example, then fine. But the rest of your argument is trivially false as the conclusions don't follow from the premises.
I can only asume that you are willing to champion his cause.
Since you don't seem to have a point to make, and you seem to be interested only in starting fights, I would appreciate if you would allow Obbi to speak for himself and not interrupt.
Ok, but what caused the universe? One can throw up one's arms and just say "God did it," but that's just faith in a God-of-the-Gaps.
My four year old asked "Who made God?" to which my wife said, "nobody." Then my four year old thought, and responded, "I think they just made him up." If a four year old can see why the Kalam argument is so lacking, can't we all?
The beginning of the universe is known as the Big Bang. It's difficult to quantify before the big bang, because all time, energy and matter was wrapped up in that thing (called the Singularity) before the big bang as well. Linear time references don't really work with this, as law of physics, relativity and and so on, did not operate as they after the big bang. We don't know how they operated, or why the universe suddenly expanded. One cannot step outside the singularity and ask what happened before the singularity expanded, as such linear time references cannot be applied - as far as we know. So, I really don't see how your first premise is valid.
And actually, there is some scientific/mathmatical evidence to suggest something can come from nothing.
The universe, cosmology, and the study of the origins of the universe are infinitely more complex than a domino analogy. It just doesn't work that way.
Jumping from 1 and 2 to = God is a HUGE jump. Why God? Why not Gods? Who said God(s) is/are infinite, other than our arbitrary definition. Who says God(s) does/do not need a beginning, or had a beginning? These are all matters of faith, not logic.
The initial cause of the universe may indeed be supernatural, but that is not something that we will ever be able to prove objectively, for the supernatural (by definition) transcends the natural - meaning logic, science and mathmatics do not apply.
I was referring to the amount of time from the beginning of each cycle (where ever you might choose that point in the cycle to be)
??? There can be no causes that require time??? Seriously lost me on that one. I have to pitch in with michabo on this and ask what it is that you are calling a "cause" (of course he doesnt want you to speak of semantics, so slip it in quick while he isnt looking)
I don't know of anyone's definition of supernatural requiring an eternal nature.
Not knowing what you consider 'nothing,' I can't say if quantum/vacuum fluctuations count.
I have yet to see anyone bother with either primary words, but argue a great deal about other words.
OObi said:Time. Time began to exist.
And it's OObi (with two, count 'em, 1, 2, capital O's)
Actually, no. If you're talking about VPs (which I assume you are, talking about vacuum fluctuations), then there is no energy which brought the VPs into existence. If we define "nothing" to be "any matter or energy", then yes, these VPs did come from nothing.But those electrons didn't come from nothing, did they? They came from the energy, and that begs the question of where did the energy come from?
Existence is having the property of affect. If something has affect on anything, then that something exists. If it has no affect whatsoever, then it doesn't exist.OObi said:[/FONT]This is really hard. YOU TRY DEFINING EXISTENCE WITHOUT USING THE WORD EXISTENCE!!! [FONT="]
[FONT="]ReluctantProphet said:[FONT="]Time is the measurement of relative movement of things. For time to exist, at least 3 things must exist. Two moving relative to each other and another moving relative to one of the first two. The measurement is the comparison of how far on moves from an object relative to the movement of the other. No object or no movement = no time.[/FONT]
None of this is even close to being true. VPs aren't electric fields, and they aren't a "compression" of anything. Space isn't the ether.The VP first come as electric fields which are either a compression (positive) or an expansion (negative) of the fabric of space (or ether as Socrates called it) from there, all else gets created. The question that they are still trying to answer is what caused the original compressions.
[/FONT]A black hole is merely an extremely large but single bit of matter. The harmony of its spin is what gives it gravity (and a typically spiraling pull pattern). Near the center of the matter, there is no gravity field. The entire object is a harmonic spin of electric waves chasing themselves around in a 3D envelop.
Didn't you learn anything from Einstein?michabo said:[/FONT]
This is philosophy and not accepted science, and even as philosophy it is very dated. I know it was around in Newton's time, but thought that it was debunked early last century. Time is a dimension, just like length and width, and not just a relationship between objects. It can be measured and affected. Everything is constantly moving through time, even if there are no (perceptible) changes.
Prove or even explain any of what you just stated without circular definitions nor adding new names for things "unknown".michabo said:None of this is even close to being true. VPs aren't electric fields, and they aren't a "compression" of anything. Space isn't the ether.
You said:ReluctantProphet said:Didn't you learn anything from Einstein?
What you just stated is philosophy. Declaring that something is a dimension changes nothing at all and explains nothing other than how you are going to treat the measurement.
No. It means that the measurements of time and space are relative to one's motion. As relative motion changes, so too do our measurements of time (and the spacial dimensions).Einstein already mathematically displayed that time, like all other measurements that man has made are all relative to each other. This meant that each can be explained in terms of all of the others.
Prove what? You want a full treaties on VPs or you want me to prove that what you said is nonsensical?ReluctantProphet said:Prove or even explain any of what you just stated without circular definitions nor adding new names for things "unknown".
Project much?For someone who is so anti-faith, you sure put a lot of faith in things merely because someone told you that "Science" said it. Even though you clearly have no understanding of what they said.
I agree completely so go for it. But "education" is NOT appending new words to bits of the things that you failed to explain before.michabo said:If you want to attack me for misunderstanding something, then please educate me. I enjoy learning.
OObi said:The biginning of the universe is known as Genesis. (I'm sure you don't believe this, but you see now how far that statement got with me) Science is the study of observations. Was anyone around to observe the big bang? No. So, any observations that we think might come from the big bang, are all speculation. Sure, we see red shift, but to link that to the big bang we must first assume that the big bang happened. Otherwise we have nothing to link it to. At this point we can't be sure of anything, because what if we're wrong? And the big bang didn't happen? Saying that in the point of singularity and in planck (I think that's how you spell it) time the laws that govern the universe weren't valid, you are just trying to run away from the obvious. "We can bring time back to the point of singularity. But before that we don't know because our equations get all mixed up and that doesn't mean that it is wrong, it just means that if was... uh... different back then, and we'll just never know."
So.... can you post it instead of just trying to cast doubt?
Anyone can say that! "Your God is too simple! So it can't be right!" Instead of just saying stuff, provide some insight to back it up. It really helps to further the conversation.
Seems to work that way for me.
All this argument proves is a supernatural cause! .....A supernatual cause is not effected by time, it is outside of time. So, a supernatural cause could have created the universe, because it doesn't require time. Whereas anything natural that you say created the universe couldn't have because it requires time. Meaning the universe couldn't have created itself. This is why atheists have to talk in circles because we aren't bound by there sarcastic rebuttles of "everything requires a cause but your God! Please!".
When I say nothing, I mean absolute nothingness, not space void nothingness or quantum vacuum nothingness, because those aren't nothingness, they are a sea of rushing energy!! When the energy flucuates, they create elctrons I think it was. But those electrons didn't come from nothing, did they? They came from the energy, and that begs the question of where did the energy come from?
The blindly faithful Christian who sees something that clearly indicates that this faith must be in error says, "The Bible can't be wrong. I must twist what I see into something that justifies my faith in my Bible."tcampen said:However, quantum fluctuations shows energy particles just "popping" in and out of existance from nothing.
Quantum fluctuations rely on something closer to energy 'borrowing.'ReluctantProphet said:Have they decided recently that indeed you CAN create and destroy energy? If so, doesn't that complicate the other laws - the very laws from which the notion of quantum physics sprang?
I well understand what they are observing. I was just making an observation myself.TeddyKGB said:Quantum fluctuations rely on something closer to energy 'borrowing.'
Whether or not I agree with you, this example won't help you. We haven't observed time begin to exist, and have no idea whether or not it has a cause. So when you say that everything which begins to exist has a cause, you have offered no way to determine this.
Further, since time is an essential component of causality, it is an open question whether it makes sense to talk of a cause for time, as this presupposes something before time.
So, would you like to address the issue of whether or not time requires a cause and drop your initial sylogism argument, or can you come up with anything else which has a begining? After all, it seems to me that the purpose of your sylogism is to conclude that time and the universe has a cause. It would hardly do for you to start with that conclusion...
My apologies. There is a long-time posted 'Obbi Quiet' and I keep reading his spelling into your nick. I will try not to make that mistake in the future.
Actually, no. If you're talking about VPs (which I assume you are, talking about vacuum fluctuations), then there is no energy which brought the VPs into existence. If we define "nothing" to be "any matter or energy", then yes, these VPs did come from nothing.
Existence is having the property of affect. If something has affect on anything, then that something exists. If it has no affect whatsoever, then it doesn't exist.
Time is the measurement of relative movement of things. For time to exist, at least 3 things must exist. Two moving relative to each other and another moving relative to one of the first two. The measurement is the comparison of how far on moves from an object relative to the movement of the other. No object or no movement = no time.
The cause of something is the unique set of circumstances that bring that something into being.
Therefore, if anything can have the effect of creating, it is a cause. But to effect is inherently an affect. Thus anything that creates is a part of existence. God has to be a part of existence to have affect.
Science can never observe that anything came from nothing simply because they can never know that they simply couldn't see what it was coming from. The idea that if science can't see it, then it doesn't exist, is typically and arrogantly immature. If anything "comes" then whatever sent it has affect and therefore existed.
The VP first come as electric fields which are either a compression (positive) or an expansion (negative) of the fabric of space (or ether as Socrates called it) from there, all else gets created. The question that they are still trying to answer is what caused the original compressions.
But in reality, nothing has to create the original compressions because of the type of material space is made of. The fabric of space will automatically begin to "jiggle" simply because of geometry. It can not ever find a state where it is balanced such that every part has equal affect on every other part. This begins subtle waves = creation.
Nevermind. Looks like you are too far gone.
I guess I should expect this in the philosophy forum.
However you choose to characterize the Big Bang, it still has far more objective support than the Genesis story. We can get back to within the tiniest fraction of a second before the Big Bang, but not the singularity, because we don't know what the law of physics were at that state.
However, quantum fluctuations shows energy particles just "popping" in and out of existance from nothing. This could provide some insight into the singularity.
Nothing proves a supernatural anything, because as you have demonstrated, the supernatural is beyond our natural world. When relying on the supernatural, one can say whatever they like. There are no limits, to restrictions, no rules - other than those one arbitrarily assigns. Anything goes. Nature doesn't work that way. So when we rely on natural explanations for our natural world, we must adhear to those limits of the natural world. It's not a matter of atheistic vs. theistic. It's a matter of understanding the qualitative difference of the natural and the supernatural.
The blindly faithful Christian who sees something that clearly indicates that this faith must be in error says, "The Bible can't be wrong. I must twist what I see into something that justifies my faith in my Bible."
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?