There must be uncaused cause even in an infinite chain.

[razeontherock]

No no durango, I didn't say you're concept of God. Please read it again ..

 

[durangodawood]

No no durango, I didn't say you're concept of God. Please read it again ..

What concept of mine exactly?
.
My reasoning? Its perfectly sound. And its obvioulsy not meant to stand in as a caricature of God, like the python image.
.

 

[razeontherock]

Sure:
1. I am proposing ONE POSSIBLE solution that explains how the universe would not require a cause. I'm not stating known fact, just possibility.
.
2. Cause-effect requires TIME.
.
4. SPACE and TIME are evident within the universe. But they may have NO application to the universe itself. We have no basis for definitive statements about what a universe requires.
.
5. The universe itself might "reside in eternity". And other universes as well, if they exist.
.
6. I'm suggesting that an eternal universe may "contain" space, time, and matter. But the universe itself may have its own sort of existence, not necessarily subject to the rules of space. time and matter. (Just like all the other possible universes.)
.
7. So, if the universe does not exist in time, then "cause/effect" may well have no applicability to its existence.
.
8. And so there's no rational necessity for the universe to have a first cause
.
.
(AND a related aside: Ask any believer in God... they all believe in an eternal/uncaused existence or realm or God. So the idea of an eternal/uncaused universe should NOT be too far out for them.)

This concept here. I said it makes sense, I said it's one way of defining G-d, and I said it's a stark contrast from the caricatures most people reference when they try to discuss the subject.

 

[Zoot]

But its entirely reasonable to suggest we might have no access now to the rules of how universes work.
.
And thats all I need to do to refute that everything must have a first cause.
.
Theists typically go WAY further with God: he IS this, he DID that.
.

Yes, that's true. It just means that "where did the universe come from?" may be as meaningless as asking "what's outside of the universe?" or "how wide is width?"

 

[AskTheFamily]

durangodawood, and if I refute the possibility you suggested, I hope you will accept their is a Creator.

I don't want to do it now, because, registering one argument is enough for one day. I will do it tomorrow, all I ask you is to open your heart tomorrow for the concept of a Creator and try to be at peace and ease with it.

 

[durangodawood]

durangodawood, and if I refute the possibility you suggested, I hope you will accept their is a Creator.

I don't want to do it now, because, registering one argument is enough for one day. I will do it tomorrow, all I ask you is to open your heart tomorrow for the concept of a Creator and try to be at peace and ease with it.

I was merely refuting a "proof".
.
If you demolish my refutation, that does NOT necessarily make the proof valid. But it would certainly make me think, and I'd take it seriously. (If Im not around tomorrow, I will look for your thread later.)
.
One thing: I am way more hostile to various proofs of God, and "demonstrations" of why he must exist, than I am to the creator concept itself.
.

 

[razeontherock]

Durango, just saw your tagline - that's GREAT!

Now, if you're hostile to G-d proving Himself to you, everything I know of Him tells me He'll keep you in the dark about that.

 

[Zoot]

Now, if you're hostile to G-d proving Himself to you, everything I know of Him tells me He'll keep you in the dark about that.

Up there with, "If you don't know why I'm angry with you, then I'm certainly not going to tell you!"

 

[razeontherock]

No, more like a gentleman. If intruding on you would upset you, He may be disinclined to intrude. Your comment Zoot, would best be responded to by stating that Durango is in a position to pray to G-d, explaining why he's angry at G-d. Then you're comparison fits the situation.

 

[durangodawood]

Durango, just saw your tagline - that's GREAT!

Now, if you're hostile to G-d proving Himself to you, everything I know of Him tells me He'll keep you in the dark about that.

"Hostile" is not quite right. But I truly think all rational proofs of God by people are by their nature crap. Really.
.
As for intuition, or grace from God: thats another story.
.
(The sig line was genius, intentional or not)
.

 

[Isambard]

YouTube - William Lane Craig: The Artful Dodger

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

Thus no evidence of a First Cause.

 

[Zoot]

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

Thus no evidence of a First Cause.

What about Aquinas' idea of first motion?

 

[AskTheFamily]

YouTube - William Lane Craig: The Artful Dodger

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

Thus no evidence of a First Cause.

I think your only good at posting videos. Any matter in motion is in effect.

My argument was about cause and effect. It's valid and sound argument even with an infinite chain of cause and effect (that ofcourse will assume the energy/matter is always there), however, then the conclusion will prove there is no infinite chain.

How about learn instead of just posting videos, to analyze what people say, and take part in a discussion. Like the other thread, I asked you to put in your words, you need to learn my friend. You really do need to learn to think and discuss, without others doing it all for you.

 

[Isambard]

I think your only good at posting videos. Any matter in motion is in effect.

And your specialty seems to be reiterating tired PRATTs and acting as though its somehow an innovative thought. This is leading me to believe you have spent your life in a cave, divorced from the last 3000 years of philosophy. I can only assume your next proof of God will be a claim on platonic forms.

My argument was about cause and effect. It's valid and sound argument even with an infinite chain of cause and effect (that ofcourse will assume the energy/matter is always there), however, then the conclusion will prove there is no infinite chain.

Of course it doesn't as you cheerfully employ non-sequituirs and false dichotomies.

How about learn instead of just posting videos, to analyze what people say, and take part in a discussion. Like the other thread, I asked you to put in your words, you need to learn my friend. You really do need to learn to think and discuss, without others doing it all for you.

And you need to learn some critical thinking skills as the glaring flaws in your "arguments" are evident to everyone except you. A high school course in debating or basic logic would be of great help in this regard.

 

[Isambard]

What about Aquinas' idea of first motion?

I don't see why that would need a first mover given that his argument relies on convential notions of causality, something that ends in the Planck epoch.

 

[ukgrace]

How many more pages do we spend writing about some ones fantasy?
ask a question and he starts writing about light.

 

[AskTheFamily]

ask a question and he starts writing about light.

Your question can only be answered by the topic of the reality creation, which is light from the light of God, and he is light of the universe.

There isn't any more life then God, he is the Ultimate life.

 

[ukgrace]

Your question can only be answered by the topic of the reality creation, which is light from the light of God, and he is light of the universe.

There isn't any more life then God, he is the Ultimate life.

You said nothing comes from nothing, so what did your God use to make everything? answer: nothing.
It's bad enough that we don't understand how the universe got started, all you have done is added another crazy thing to try and understand.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Just to be clear, this is not the Kalam argument, however somewhat resembles it.

Kalam says infinite chain must terminate, thus assume Uncaused Cause. This is not the argument, my argument, is that infinite chain is still an effect, as a series of effect or not, is still an effect, and hence in need of Uncaused Cause.

The tradional one people are using to hearing is that infinite chain is not possible, hence uncaused cause. This is not the argument here, this is why I titled specifically referring to the infinite chain.

However, I don't believe an infinite chain is possible, but this was not the basis of the argument. If someone get's a refutation of that argument, it is totally unrelated with this argument.

 

[AskTheFamily]

You said nothing comes from nothing, so what did your God use to make everything?

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".