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'm sure it's not only my opinion; using technological progress in the form of being able to construct and transmit a post world wide which attacks technological progress is a stunning example of hypocrisy .
Do you enjoy repeating yourself?
Lol, I attacked what? I didn't attack anything.
I'm sure this technology is inevitable, but I don't have to like it.
But hey, it let's you be a keyboard warrior, so I can see why you like it.
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word hate.Another thing to hate about "progress." Thanks.
What it clearly is, is a universe created by an intelligent being. Proposing that it has no beginning is as messed up as flat earth, at least. Everything points to a beginning and an eventual end of this planet.
To propose the universe has existed forever, you have to ignore that it's expanding or explain how it could expand forever without having a point to expand from.All of existance, even our mere Universe are *just* a little bit bigger than this planet.
Of course the Earth had a beginning, it's only 4.5 Gyr old. Much younger than the Universe.
I have no problem with the Universe self-creating. That's what we see happening.To suppose that the universe is the exception seems silly.
To propose the universe has existed forever, you have to ignore that it's expanding or explain how it could expand forever without having a point to expand from.
Yes, that's exactly what they are proposing. Even if you propose this universe is one of many, where does that get you? Universes magically spawning other universes into eternity past is no more scientific than just saying that God did it.Is anyone actually proposing that *our* Universe (you know, the expanding one) has been around "forever"?
I fear a looseness of terminology has crept in.
Yes, that's exactly what they are proposing. Even if you propose this universe is one of many, where does that get you? Universes magically spawning other universes into eternity past is no more scientific than just saying that God did it.
As expected my explanation of 'nothing' was way beyond your paygrade to understand.Abra-ca-dapra! Magic universe makes itself from nothing!
post
#70
Eternal matter.
Scientific laws are conceptual in nature and so yes they do require someone to create those conceptual integrations. Human beings have the capability to form conceptual integrations. Scientific laws are universal generalizations. They are the product of induction which Humans have the ability to do. The facts which these generalizations identify are not creations. They are inherent in nature, nature being the realm of things acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities.You can't have scientific laws without someONE creating those laws. Without a first cause, nothing would exist.
So again we have eternal matter. Which is no different than believing in an eternal being.Scientific laws are conceptual in nature and so yes they do require someone to create those conceptual integrations. Human beings have the capability to form conceptual integrations. Scientific laws are universal generalizations. They are the product of induction which Humans have the ability to do. The facts which these generalizations identify are not creations. They are inherent in nature, nature being the realm of things acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities.
But that's just the thing, we don't think anything (existence) can come from non-existence, etc...?So then if it's no different, we don't need to posit a creator since we know that matter and energy exist and can be eternal. God is just an extra, unwarranted step.
Existence is a primary, irreducible fact. What some call a brute fact. That means it can't be analyzed or explained in terms of antecedent facts. It just is. You either accept that fact or you don't. Because knowledge is heirarchical, it means that it has a starting point. That starting point can only be existence.
The only alternative is to start with non-existence, which is what you do when you seek a cause for existence. This is such simple logic that I wonder that this question of the origins of existence persists.
Oh, and BTW, you kind of just now said that anything that exists has to come from something that either does or did (always) exist...?So then if it's no different, we don't need to posit a creator since we know that matter and energy exist and can be eternal. God is just an extra, unwarranted step.
Existence is a primary, irreducible fact. What some call a brute fact. That means it can't be analyzed or explained in terms of antecedent facts. It just is. You either accept that fact or you don't. Because knowledge is heirarchical, it means that it has a starting point. That starting point can only be existence.
The only alternative is to start with non-existence, which is what you do when you seek a cause for existence. This is such simple logic that I wonder that this question of the origins of existence persists.
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?