|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Uncreated Creator Argument | |||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Basically we have a universe that, as far as we know, started from four basic nonliving elements.
Like what, air, fire, earth and water? I think you are probably a little behind the times in your scientific knowledge, did you get all your book-learning from the ancient Greeks?
The point i am getting at is the fact that we humans, by attempting to theorize a universe without a Creator, in effect become the source of the explanation for something that occurred before we were even around to begin with!!
I don't see how that is any point at all. Just because humans are the source of the explanation does not connect them to the source of the event. A human can come across a rockslide that happened many years before they were born, and through study of the evidence explain that it occurred due to the weathering of a stream. Does that human's explanation of the event mean that they somehow caused the rockslide? Of course not! The rockslide happened regardless of the existence or eventual existence of the human; the explanation is simply a human mental invention to bring sense to reality. Logic is simply a method of thinking which yields proper results. It derives its validity not from opinion but from the very fabric of reality; it is as much a description of how things work as it is a discipline. That being said, logic is shaped by observation and if the observations do not match what logic would suggest, then logic is altered to match.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
Your train of thought is flawed. It is not logical to conclude that something which has an end cannot always have existed. The only thing you can logically conclude is that it will, at some point, have an end and that that end has not yet occurred. Deciding that because it has an end it cannot always have existed is yet another example of you pulling an idea out of your butt and claiming/treating it as the truth. But as I understand it something that will at some point conk out or cease to exist could not have always existed. This is only logical, to propose that the universe has always existed is to connote that it is eternal, but we know that the universe isn't eternal because it will someday run down, my question here is when did the universe stop being eternal if it previously existed eternally. Furthermore, if we are using the Big Bang theory then the universe does have a finite beginning point. The key is that space-time is an integral part of the universe itself and so its origin coincides with the origin of the universe, thus it always existed. Any point at which the universe did not exist would imply the lack of a time frame in which to measure said point.
Cedre writes:
You seem very confused here, I am wondering if you have a lucid and coherent point on this subject.
A second point is time time is involved in the conception of something, thus the phrase zero hour, to prove my point without time earth wouldn't have had a history, and history is a record of everything that came into existence and went out of existence and all of this happened with time. Things also run down with time or improve with time. Time is one piece of the puzzle. Cedre writes:
This is a completely subjective decision on your part. The laws do not stop functioning, they are simply never applied. Nothing about time stopping makes gravity stop working, it just means that there is no other time frame in which to see how it alters processes. Gravitational lensing and spatial distortion would still be in effect when viewing a static system.
Question is will the physical laws still operate if time were to stop suddenly, would gravity still function, or will it pause for a while, will energy laws take a break or continue functioning? What we can expect if time suddenly stops is there won't be any more changing until it resumes, everything will remain in the state it was when time stopped, so in a sense the laws will also stop working temporarily, because the laws are linked up with change. Cedre writes:
Ok, there are a TON of problems here which you have managed to cram into a very concise package. Let’s go through some of them: Now according to the bible there is no time in heaven, no night or day, so it is not reasonable to say that God is a slave to gravity as we are or that he can age? Without time the physical laws cannot function. Also time-keeping suggest that there had to be a zero hour for time itself, time had to start somewhere; there must have been point when time was 0. I cannot imagine an infinite time i.e. time that never had a start. 1: Now according to the bible — It would really help if you backed this sort of crazy stuff up with citations. Faiths, being created by imagination and preference, vary wildly in both interpretation and source material. Not everyone shares your particular views, especially where they deviate wildly from reality. 2: Without time the physical laws cannot function. We already went over this above, but stopping time also leads to other issues. For instance, you would not be able to do anything in heaven. This prevents angles from singing, God from talking, being kind, etc.. and you from thinking or perceiving anything at all. Other critical plot points become impossible, such as how do you explain Lucifer being cast out of a place that is incompatible with action or history? 3: Also time-keeping suggest that there had to be a zero hour for time itself. Time-keeping is a human invention, and it implies nothing about the fundamental nature of time other than that it passes. The time scale that humans use is completely subjective; I can spin the face of a clock to read any time and it does not alter the reality of time passing. This should be fairly obvious. 4: I cannot imagine an infinite time i.e. time that never had a start. Once again I must spell this out for you Cedre: Just because you don’t understand something does not mean it does not exist, or work that way. The universe does not care how stupid you are, it worked before you were born and will work after you die, regardless of your ability to understand why. That last point is what concerns me the most. I may not share his viewpoints in other areas but this particular failing leads me to believe Cedre is dangerously insane. Such is my concern about religion; there is nothing wrong about the practice itself, but it indicates a deep mental malformation which concerns me from a societal standpoint.
Cedre writes:
This reminds me of the story about the Flat-Earth believer who explained that the Earth was on the back of a giant tortoise. When asked what the tortoise was standing on, she replied It is tortoises all the way down! Another key factor for something to start to exist is a cause, the launcher, or the starter. AiG declares that God is the uncaused caused who caused everything, is this claim reasonable though? Let’s compare it against its counterargument that states that God was caused by another God that was himself caused by an earlier God and so on giving us an infinite string of gods coming and going out of existence. If this is the reasoning then it means that Yahweh the current God will at some point in the future also go out of existence, but not before he creates another Yahweh who will take over from him. The point is that such an explanation is not an explanation at all; instead of a god that always existed you substitute a string of gods with no end. You never addressed the issue of where the first god came from! An eternal god and an eternal string of finite-lived gods are interchangeable for the purposes of that discussion.
Cedre writes:
Actually, the position that makes the most sense is that you are a loony which is why neither of your ideas make any sense. This isn’t an either-or choice as you make it out to be, both of your ideas could be wrong.
All in all the first position that God is uncreated makes more sense and is much more believable than the counter position which holds that God is only one in a long chain of gods leading up to him. Cedre writes:
Who says, you and your ancient book? Besides if you are willing to accept something always existing then why not accept that matter and energy always existed? That way you get around the whole conservation law, and you don’t need to make up magic sky wizards.
The universe cannot be this uncaused cause, because the universe is physical for starters and matter cannot just start to exits by itself. Energy cannot be created or destroyed and energy=matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Phat writes:
It is exactly this reason that I get the heebie jeebies around religious people. Not relying on evidence means that those people are profoundly unpredictable; there is no good reason for a significant portion of their behaviors. This usually manifests in relatively tame ways, such as altering their dietary habits or social behaviors, but one day they could be told by God to go on a murder spree. Sure, this doesn’t happen much. It is just a little disturbing to have it in the back of my mind the possibility that on certain topics the person I am dealing with will suddenly behave completely nutters, and *they don’t see a problem with it!*
I do not rely on evidence for every single situation in my life. Faith is faith precisely because of the absence of evidence. Phat writes:
And that is disturbing, that you would consider your unfounded beliefs as equally probable as empirically founded beliefs. This is essentially saying that you do not differentiate between your fantasy world and the real world. Such an attitude can cause real trouble; would you push someone out into the road under the belief that God would save them? Of course not, you would argue, my religion does not say that is a good idea any more than common courtesy. Well what about praying for someone to get better rather than getting them medical attention that goes against your religious beliefs? Pig organs, stem cells, etc? Concerning the existence of God, I realize that I could be wrong in my belief, but maintain that there is at least an equal chance that you could be also. If religion was a purely private practice then there would be no justification for people to criticize you for your choices. After all, it would be none of their business. On the other hand when religion extends beyond the purely personal and starts affecting others it becomes an issue. My personal unstated social contract prohibits treating imagination as reality, both for myself and others. Doesn’t yours?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Cedre writes:
Again, this does not logically follow. If you state that something has an end you have established that it has an end. That is all. If you state that something has no beginning then you have established that it has no beginning. THAT IS ALL. Surely this isn’t too much for your intellect to grasp? How can something that has always existed have an end, something that has an end must have a beginning because the second you claim that it has always existed your ascribing it the property of being eternal. Imagine that your god today makes a golden ball, about the size of a baseball. He stated that as a symbol of his love, the ball would endure forever and never be destroyed. Can you conceive of that? By your deeply flawed logic earlier, because the ball had a beginning you for some reason would assume that the ball would also need to have an end even though God said it wouldn’t. You see, they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, and one can be true without the other. I don’t care if your brain has to work overtime to think properly, and I don’t care if you strain something striving for rational thought, it is something you should shoot for.
Cedre writes:
It is a subtle difference that I didn’t expect you to be able to fathom. My example was gravity; while gravity is very obvious when it affects the movement of objects, it also has fundamental effects on the surrounding space. The very fabric of space-time is bent by gravity, and that does not cease to be when time is frozen. If they are not applied then they are not taking place, and if they are not taking place they aren’t functioning. By not functioning I’m not saying that the laws have broken down, I simply mean that they have been paused. To put it very clearly, we can conceptually pick any snapshot of time and consider it as a unique period of frozen time. Since we can pick *any* period of time and do this then every moment in time as we experience it follows the same rules. If we stated that things like gravity stopped working during periods of frozen time then we would be suggesting that there is no time when gravity works, which is clearly ridiculous. Instead we mean that we cannot observe the normal effects of such properties and forces because the time frame does not allow effects to take place.
Cedre writes:
What did we say about special pleading? Besides, you talked yourself into a corner later on in the post where you ruled out a plethora of gods; after all, a god does not have to make sense right?
In any case as I have mentioned the physical laws do not have to apply to God and his surrounding, Cedre writes:
I am actually being more polite than you are; after all it was you who suggested that your inability to understand something made it impossible. I simply stated that your handicap is not handicapping the entire universe, which I suppose could be interpreted as a compliment.
Look at that you’re getting too personal, calm down man Cedre writes:
I backed up my assertion, and you will notice that I am not trying to use it to disprove any of your ideas without evidence. If you claim to think in ways that are not sane then you should not be surprised if people point such things out.
Wow some people are just not built for debates they turn onto the debater when debater disagrees with them. Cedre writes:
I don’t think this is an accepted method of logical debate. Are you trying to attack my points through ridicule? That tactic is a well-documented fallacy.
Huh! This guy has really convinced himself that he is a guest on the Springer Show, have a look at all those insults gushing forth from his mouth. Cedre writes:
You will have to provide an argument that contains substance. This method is not acceptable, as you don’t even identify what parts you do not agree with.
I think you need to undergo a physics module, or if you already have then you need to revisit your class notes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Bluejay writes:
See, there is where you stopped relying on observations and started attributing your personal thoughts as reality. We have no indication or proof that there is any sort of "meta-dimension"; just because it is easier for you to think about it growing into something does not mean it actually works that way.
Surely there has to be a "meta-dimension" through which it is growing, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Bluejay writes:
Wouldn’t the departure from the 4 dimensions that you know about be a suggestion that it might not work like the 4 dimensions that you know about? Inductive reasoning would be useful if you had first identified some properties of this hypothesized meta-dimension that were similar to our own; in the absence of any evidence whatsoever the simplest answer is that it isn’t there.
I have no alternative hypothesis, so the only thing I can do is extrapolate from the null, which I have taken, in this instance, to be the behavior of the four dimensions that I know about. Bluejay writes:
Criticism of your use of inductive logic is one of the only forms of acceptable discussion. If I cannot logically criticize your position then what other method do you suggest? Emotional appeal? Perhaps a healthy dose of character assassination? Criticism of my usage of inductive logic is not discussion. Unless a suitable, testable alternative can be presented, I have no choice but to use the null hypothesis as the basis for my reasoning. Your question was a direct response to the alternative hypothesis of there not being a meta-dimension; you will note that it isn’t included in the original theory. My opposition to your theory is based on its untestable and unevidenced nature. Your position is seemingly in opposition to what can be tested, so using that as support for your argument seems counterintuitive.
Bluejay writes:
This premise requires an unstated premise that there is an outside the universe. This idea appears to be altogether unsupported by evidence and generated from whole cloth out of your unfounded speculation. So far as we can tell there is nothing about our universe that cannot be adequately described without the introduction of an outside, so I don’t see any reason to include that concept. Either (1) causality (or an equivalent phenomenon) applies outside the universe, or (2) it doesn’t. It appears that the entirety of your theory is reliant on a purely speculative location outside of existence where anything and everything can make sense, resulting in what you consider to be support for preconceived beliefs. This is the God of the Gaps argument to a theoretical extreme; even if we were to know everything that there was to know in the universe you would suggest that all that stuff we didn’t know could still be true in some nowhere land.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Bluejay writes:
My point wasn't that you should assume there is a departure, it was that you shouldn't assume there *isn't* a departure. To make the distinction more clear, here is an example: With all due respect, I don't know why I should assume there is a departure. Suppose you are shown four boxes. Inside each of these boxes is a crow. Someone suggests to you that there *might* be a fifth box. What is inside the box? Now you might be tempted to conclude that there is probably a crow in the fifth box but that isn't warranted. If you had observed a box like the other four then you could reasonably expect a crow to be within the fifth box, but had you observed a barrel that assumption becomes much more shaky. Having observed nothing at all there is no logical reason to assume there is evidence pointing toward your usual experiences. Without any evidence at all, any conclusion is pure speculation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Bluejay writes:
Lets try to look at it from a perspective that is not centered around humanity. All those things that "do not exist" are purely conceptual; that is to say, they are only brought about by the workings of a human mind. From that perspective those things that do not exist are purely artificial and those things that do exist are natural to varying extents. For example: A car, while designed and built by humans, is created from naturally occurring elements. An invisible pink unicorn (or any other mental construct that does not exist) is purely artificial. Doesn't that stuff "not exist," regardless of whether or not the universe "does exist?" From this I would suggest the conclusion that existence is the natural state of things. That statement is somewhat self-evident and circular, but that is perhaps unavoidable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
If we are debating a non-existent concept (such as a unicorn) we are debating something that originated from human thought; before the invention of a unicorn it wasn't even non-existent as a concept. At the risk of arguing semantics we were discussing the default state of "things". In order for something to be conceptually non-existent you require the ability to conceive it.
Of course I consider this tangle to be a semantic spiral like the "Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?" riddle...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024