solid_core
Well-Known Member
It does logically follow, because you can follow the chain of causes to God.Unsupported assertion, and does not logically follow.
Upvote
0
It does logically follow, because you can follow the chain of causes to God.Unsupported assertion, and does not logically follow.
I reread it.Re-read what you just wrote. It's internally inconsistent. By stating there is a first cause, it automatically means "not everything requires a cause."
Those aren't the only two options.
Abstract ideas only exist in the minds of the people thinking about them.Universe and abstract ideas are different categories. The universe is physical. Abstract ideas are not.
The universe is physical. Abstract ideas are not. Therefore abstract ideas do not need the universe to exist. You do not need a physical triangle for the idea of triangle to exist.Doesn't matter. How can abstract ideas exist if there is no universe for them to exist in?
Something always existing.I reread it.
Right...NOT EVERYTHING REQUIRES A CAUSE...
The first cause cannot possibly have a cause or it woudn't be the first cause...
As to options...what would another option be?
1. Something coming from nothing.
2. A deity.
3......?
Its like to say that the laws of nature exist because people are thinking about them. Or logic. Or mathematics.Abstract ideas only exist in the minds of the people thinking about them.
LOLYes, all of the time. Odds are that it was a church group that paid for that talk. It is unsurprising that there was not anyone that could refute him there. My main complaint with most creationists is that they are not looking for answers, they are looking for excuses to believe. If the answers tell them that they are wrong they do not seem to want to hear them.
Abstract ideas do not exist "in" the universe. They are outside of space or time.Doesn't matter. How can abstract ideas exist if there is no universe for them to exist in?
Funny!Or he could have been the Satan of the Old Testament--God's left-hand man, a trickster as he was in the story of Job. Like the Coyote of Southwest Native American mythology or Loki in the Norse pantheon.
No answer to the second question...Which god should science take into consideration? How should his involvement in observations be measured?
Because its possible for the universe not to exist.
P.S.Which god should science take into consideration? How should his involvement in observations be measured?
Abstract ideas do not exist "in" the universe. They are outside of space or time.
Abstract ideas do not exist "in" the universe. They are outside of space or time.
For example the idea of a circle. Or number "5". Or sets.How can they exist ANYWHERE if nobody exists to think them?
BTW, can you give me an example of an uncaused abstract idea? I contend that all ideas are also caused.
Oh, but I see a concerted effort to prove there is no God,,,rather than an honest effort to come to some conclusion...(although this is happening anyway).Yet God does not figure in his theories.
Nor does it claim to. In particular it does not claim that there is no God.
Something that rules how our universe behaves, but is immaterial.What is the definition of an abstract idea?
Speedwell,,,,Something always existing.