There must be uncaused cause even in an infinite chain.

[AskTheFamily]

Appealing to, "scientist theorize perhaps atoms pop of nothingness", is not an option.

For any Appeal to authority people, if things seem to pop into existence, we have two options:

1) Natural cause that we don't know of yet.
2) Super natural cause.

The idea existence comes out of nothing to existence, is out of the question.

If people want to throw away "from nothing, nothing follows" because some scientist "theorize" with their logic about data, to imply this, it's really up to them. We are here deciding out fate of our souls, you want to seal your soul with that decision, go ahead.

 

[ukgrace]

There isn't more existence then God. Everything exists by his glory, he can give things existence from himself without loosing any himself, it's in his power to do so.

We are combination of non-existence and existence, and closer to non-existence (absolutely closer to it), this is why Mystics would say, "we are non-existence showing existence".

So why are we even talking about something that does not exist? (other than in your head)

 

[Eudaimonist]

If it was in movement, it wasn't always there, it had a start, and your trying to assert "start" was "always there" which is a contradiction.

It's no contradiction at all if you understand that time simply refers to change, and that it is an aspect of the universe, and not an ocean the universe swims in.

If started, and moved from there, it was not always there, it was not Eternal.

No, it didn't start. It started to change. It didn't have a start. For all of "time" -- it's time -- it was always there, changing.

There is no time before change. And no non-existence before its existence.

So just give it point start, and give that point power and movement, then assert that start point always existed, doesn't make logical sense. To assert movement just started from it is stupid.

When I say "always existed", I mean for all of time, but time is what I am saying started. Time does not exist before the start of movement.

And to make "the begining of time" to "Eternal always there" makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense. If time has a beginning, then eternal is wherever time exists, and not before.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AskTheFamily]

No, it didn't start. It started to change.

It doesn't do difference, the same logic applies. Instead of "appearing", you can put the word "moving", and the same logic applies.

However, it's obvious if started moving it had a start to it's existence, it can't be just eternal and still, and then motion starts.

 

[durangodawood]

...The idea existence comes out of nothing to existence, is out of the question.

If people want to throw away "from nothing, nothing follows" because some scientist "theorize" with their logic about data, to imply this, it's really up to them. We are here deciding out fate of our souls, you want to seal your soul with that decision, go ahead.

Its entirely possible that at the very micro level, existence DID pop out of nothing.
.
Lets allow that our inductions may have been scale-biased in favor of the behavior of larger objects.
.

 

[Eudaimonist]

However, it's obvious if started moving it had a start to it's existence, it can't be just eternal and still, and then motion starts.

You still don't understand what I am saying. I'm not saying that it started off "eternal and still". It was never "still", because time wouldn't exist in that context. Time only exists while it is changing. So there was never a "time" in which it wasn't changing.

There was no start to its existence, if this means it appeared where "previously" there was nothing at all. There are no previous moments to its changing.

Get it yet? There is a start to time itself, and "before" time started has no meaning whatsoever.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AskTheFamily]

Get it yet?

I know what you are trying to say.

It always existed, yet started moving, yet there is no start to the movement because it was always "starting". I know, I just pointed how this is a contradiction.

I think it's just going to repetitive if you keep just repeating your assertion to address the points to refutation of the assertion.

I know time only exists while it's changing. If it's always been changing, then there is the infinite chain and cause, if there is start point, it was not always changing, it was either still at one point then changed or it started (for example movement has a start). As for infinite change, it's show to be an effect. Every effect has a cause.

What is might be ever effect has a cause, is that state of the effect is not the cause, it has a previous state which makes the state.

Your trying to say movement doesn't haven't a cause, the effect it's cause, which goes against the principle. And you trying to say it is in time, but before that time didn't exist, and just make time appear with no cause, movement just appear, and not in need of a eternal uncaused cause.

I think it comes down to denying every effect has a cause, and your into semantics to escape that.

Anyways, the logic is valid:

Every effect has a cause.
Finite and infinite chains of effects, still makes the whole chain an effect.
The whole chain thus must have uncaused cause.

I think you have an issue with the first premise and saying some how it's not true, and I tried to show you the flaw in your reasoning.

 

[durangodawood]

...Finite and infinite chains of effects, still makes the whole chain an effect...

I should just say:
.
We have so little access to knowledge about what a universe really IS, that we shouldnt make life decisions based on speculative reasoning about its properties.
.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think it's just going to repetitive if you keep just repeating your assertion to address the points to refutation of the assertion.

I first need to see that you understand my argument. Otherwise, you'll just be refuting something I never meant.

I know time only exists while it's changing. If it's always been changing, then there is the infinite chain and cause, if there is start point, it was not always changing, it was either still at one point then changed or it started (for example movement has a start).

And this is what I was correcting you about. There was a beginning to change, but that doesn't mean that change was preceded by stillness. There is no time for such stillness to exist.

Your trying to say movement doesn't haven't a cause

No, the cause is the universe as it existed at the beginning of time. It was in the nature of this entity to change. It still is.

And you trying to say it is in time, but before that time didn't exist

There is no such thing as "before" time existing.

I think it comes down to denying every effect has a cause

I don't deny this at all. It is definitionally true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AskTheFamily]

I think I am understanding what your trying to say but I don't understand what you mean because it is not logically possible. Therefore I can't relate to it, and I don't know how to understand something logically contradictory and impossible.

That time began, at one point there was no time. I get this much. But your making that no time thing not eternal at the same time not coming to be, which I don't think makes any sense and it's talking non sense.

It just having movement, and you saying what it started from is the cause, and then saying the cause is not Eternal, not always there, yet it also did not come into existence. It's against logic and it's a contradiction. If it didn't come to be, it was always there, hence Eternal. You can't deny both Eternal, and at the same time, say it also didn't come to be. It makes no sense.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I think I am understanding what your trying to say but I don't understand what you mean because it is not logically possible. Therefore I can't relate to it, and I don't know how to understand something logically contradictory and impossible.

That time began, at one point there was no time. I get this much. But your making that no time thing not eternal at the same time not coming to be, which I don't think makes any sense and it's talking non sense.

It just having movement, and you saying what it started from is the cause, and then saying the cause is not Eternal, not always there, yet it also did not come into existence. It's against logic and it's a contradiction. If it didn't come to be, it was always there, hence Eternal. You can't deny both Eternal, and at the same time, say it also didn't come to be. It makes no sense.

I don't think he's saying it was "always there" and hence "eternal" because the word "eternal" implies that TIME IS ACTUALLY PASSING for an infinity.

If all the atoms in the universe stopped changing their positions right now, would time still be passing? I personally don't think so, because the concept of time that humans have is actually just a concept of change between two states. the only way you know time has passed is if you see a change. and I think that's all time IS. time is a progression towards higher entropy.

If you rewind time and progress to lower entropy you eventually reach zero entropy.

So I think a more appropriate question is "Why is entropy increasing?" That's the question that gets to heart of the matter. Its not about first cause, its about why entropy is increasing at all. Right now, or 1 billion years from now or 14 billion years ago, its the same essential problem.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I don't think he's saying it was "always there" and hence "eternal"

I know that, and he was also saying "it didn't come to be" either.

Which is contradictory, if didn't come to be, it was Eternal. If it came to be, it was not always there.

There is Eternal, Always was and is. There is coming to be, not always is, and becoming.

He is trying to say the Uncaused Causer is not Eternal nor came to be, which makes no sense.

 

[razeontherock]

"Hostile" is not quite right. But I truly think all rational proofs of God by people are by their nature crap. Really.

I think the quality of the proof is entirely dependent upon the definition. I do find evidence via Grace coming from G-d Himself, personally is WAY better than anything I can think of!

 

[razeontherock]

Summary:
Nothing physical in our universe 'begins to exist'. Everything is made up of previous matter/energy.

Thus no evidence of a First Cause.

G-d is invisible. (String theory may be changing that though; nothing in conflict w/ any of the Bible,and it actually makes quite a lot of sense from that angle.)

 

[AskTheFamily]

I do find evidence via Grace coming from G-d Himself, personally is WAY better than anything I can think of!

I agree.

The Guided are only Guided by the light of God's face, he points/guides to his essence by his essence.

 

[razeontherock]

Get it yet? There is a start to time itself, and "before" time started has no meaning whatsoever.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You're still defining G-d very well, and grasping the concept too.

 

[razeontherock]

I agree.

The Guided are only Guided by the light of God's face, he points/guides to his essence by his essence.

Hey, I'm posting a study on this very thing, which goes into knowable details of the light of G-d's face, as it appears to us in the way we can most commonly come into contact with it; in our hearts and minds. The purpose is to be able to recognize them, and sort all others out. Perhaps all the details of the light of G-d's face that are knowable are included there? I'd be curious what you think of the details of the study, to see if there's any common ground at all, what you might add, etc. It's in the "Deeper Fellowship" sub-form, the only thread I started there.

There's more to come. Out of 12 gemstones representing this, I only have 3 posted so far.

 

[Nooj]

I agree.

The Guided are only Guided by the light of God's face, he points/guides to his essence by his essence.

What exactly do you mean by that? I'm pretty sure you don't mean God has a face and it emits light.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That time began, at one point there was no time. I get this much. But your making that no time thing not eternal at the same time not coming to be, which I don't think makes any sense and it's talking non sense.

That's no contradiction at all.

It just having movement, and you saying what it started from is the cause, and then saying the cause is not Eternal, not always there, yet it also did not come into existence. It's against logic and it's a contradiction.

That's no contradiction at all.

If it didn't come to be, it was always there, hence Eternal.

And here is the missing part. What does "always there" mean outside of the context of time?

I think you are making the fundamental mistake of viewing time as a kind of ocean that the universe swims in, and not as an aspect of the universe itself. Time has no absolute reference point outside of the universe. You are trying to give it one, and so you can't make sense out of what I am saying.

You can't deny both Eternal, and at the same time, say it also didn't come to be. It makes no sense.

What I deny is your paradigm of time and eternity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ukgrace]

I agree.

The Guided are only Guided by the light of God's face, he points/guides to his essence by his essence.

What exactly do you mean by that? I'm pretty sure you don't mean God has a face and it emits light.

No it's more like mental gymnastics that religious people perform in order to make their belief seem more real,
they convince themselves that saying things like that will get them closer to what they believe, it's all in the mind but who cares? it works for them so who are we to knock it, what ever floats their boats, that's why they like to gather with people who think as they do because they feed off of each other to make their faith stronger, it's a group thing and it works, all of the big evangelists will testify to that because it worked for them.