Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 285
  1. #61
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Chad, you propose, essentially, the following model of time: God at one end (in the "beginning", if you'll allow the word), an infinity of time hence, and then now.

    God<----Universe-------------->Now

    I propose a different one: the universe at the beginning of a finite past, leading up to now.

    Universe-------------->Now

    In other words, the universe (i.e. the Big Bang) was simply there at the start of time, 13.7 billion years ago (the Big Bang created not only space, but space-time). What caused it to be there? The same thing that, in your model, caused God to be there. The answer to "Why does the universe exist, rather than not?" in my model is the same as the the answer to "Why does God exist, rather than not?" in yours.

    I justify my model in the same way you justified yours:
    However, a cause is only necessitated for something that at a prior moment was in a different state.
    The beginning of a universe with a finite past was never in a different state at a prior moment; there were no prior moments.

    So both our models are equally valid. But wait, it gets better: my model is simpler (and thus preferable) because it cuts out a link in the chain (God) and an infinity of time that the Big Bang theory does not require anyway. By Occam's razor, I win
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    I agree mostly with what Castle is saying. Occam's Razor applies when there are two hypotheses, each of which are sufficient to explain a series of observations. The razor eliminates the more complicated hypothesis. In this case the observations are rather broad (everything in the Universe) while the two hypotheses are at the crux of the oldest argument:

    1. God did it.
    2. It happened.

    Atheists apply the razor, eliminating the first option, as it is precisely one God more complicated than the second option. Meanwhile, Theists reject the second option as being insufficient to explain the Universe. At the same time, some element of uncertainty, some gap between what is and what we understand will always haunt us. Uncertainty is as inevitable as the universe is vast and ever-changing. Though I do not believe in God, I am not opposed to Faith, because within that uncertainty lurks fear and with that fear comes despair and hopelessness. Without hope, we are surely lost. That is the darkness, as far as I'm concerned. As the saying goes, Faith, then, is the light, the willingness to try even when failure seems inevitable. This may be the most powerful of all ideas, the most useful tool we will ever have. So let there be light and let us not judge Faith too hastily. However, let's not be blind, either. Being who we are, this tool, Faith, has been bought and sold a million times over, packaged and repackaged by anyone and everyone--sometimes for good but more often for ill. But should we blame faith more than ourselves for this?
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  3. #63
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Well, Castle more or less stole my thunder, but seeing as how Chad never responded to me anyways, I suppose it matters very little.


    Good job, Castle.

  4. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Have faith, He will respond.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  5. #65
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Castle - What you are proposing is the 'creation' of the physical and temporal universe at or before the 'big Bang', from nothing. And in like vein the 'laws' that are inherent in that moment of being; including the 'law of cause and effect'. Hmmmn, what you propose is a nonsense on two counts at least. To get something out of nothing is impossible, since there is nothing, no cause, to effect the event. For every event, the cause(s) need(s) to be greater - otherwise stacis. Temporal physicality has a 'sell-by' date - entropy and dynamic 'heat death' of the universe has been 'physically and mathematically' calculated as happening in less than 1,000 billion years, so if the 11 or so dimensions of this universe are insufficient to sustain it through infinity, there must be further dimensions, that include existence through infinity and the ability to make/create/cause/change laws as well as substance. I contend that the 'G' word is a very reasonable contender for consideration.

    Infinity, under the 'law of cause and effect' and taken in reverse timeline, allows for the original acausality to be infinitely great. Anything we percieve as being a paradox, such as the existence of anything, is only down to the fact that of physical experience and that of the physical and temporal universe, and that of science and maths as we know it - we are necessarily constrained by the 11ish dimensions of physical temporality. This situation does not appear to be the limit of total reality and knowledge/ability, since I personally believe that in the totality of realit(ies) nothing can rationally be a paradox. Our universe is therefore, I submit, just a part of what really is, but that our physicality constrains us from 'scientific' validation of that fact. I believe that it is only through our 'mind' interface that more 'dimensions' may (possibly) be accessed.
    Last edited by FruitandNut; August 6th, 2008 at 11:12 PM.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  6. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Aye, but if the universe were a giant egg, laid by a giant "C" word, then, whence came the Chicken?
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  7. #67
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Zorak - You are a product of temporality and a temporal universe, and seem imaginatively limiting yourself to the totality of reality being similarly constrained; what I am proposing is 'something'/someone' that/who has been linked to existence/being for infinity, and therefore under the laws of cause and effect is of infinite dimensionality/power. Paraphrasing the words of Winston Churchill, "Some chicken, therefore some egg(s)."
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  8. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    Zorak - You are a product of temporality and a temporal universe, and seem imaginatively limiting yourself to the totality of reality being similarly constrained; what I am proposing is 'something'/someone' that/who has been linked to existence/being for infinity, and therefore under the laws of cause and effect is of infinite dimensionality/power. Paraphrasing the words of Winston Churchill, "Some chicken, therefore some egg(s)."
    F&N, you have scrambled this poor fool's brains. Forgive me for asking, but doesn't the entire cosmological argument in the OP depend on the logic of temporality, cause and effect? I don't mean to be going around and around, up and down, but if there is some other dimension in time and space from whence springs infinity, then why must we anthropomorphize or chickenpomorphize or whatever? Meaning, if the problem is the missing matter (something coming from nothing, which you objected to previously), and the explanation is that there's another place and time connected to this place and time . . . then wouldn't that place and time be within our universe? If it's connected, I mean? This is where I stumble in my Faith and shrug my shoulders. I can't say, "nothing existed and now there's an egg . . . and because there's an egg, there must have been a chicken" because the conclusion: "there's a chicken" negates one of my initial assumptions, "nothing existed". I know that something happened that I don't understand, but I can't pin it on a chicken for sure because the egg is too complex for my brain to grasp. I simply don't know what kind of chicken could lay such an egg. In short, I just don't know. But maybe you're right . . . I do enjoy your thoughts and words.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  9. #69
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    To me, the 'cosmological argument's' strength lies in the fact that our dynamic physical and temporal universe does not appear to be logically or physically explainable or sustainable.

    ps. Set against the totality of reality, and the totality of possible knowledge, we are all dumbos. It is my belief that when our mind/spirit interface slips into those 'other dimensions' after our temporal death, that we will find that the 'Tree of Knowledge' of this world/universe, is but one in a very large forest.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  10. #70
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    To me, the 'cosmological argument's' strength lies in the fact that our dynamic physical and temporal universe does not appear to be logically or physically explainable or sustainable.
    Which part is inexplicable? Many things are understood and many are mysterious. If the universe is not sustainable, then something can become nothing. Why not the opposite? If you're referring to The Moment . . . then I agree that we don't understand what happened. But that's an unusual time, indeed. How could we explain, using models based on observations in our current universe . . . the events that gave rise to it?
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  11. #71
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Just because the universe as is, is not sustainable, does not mean it came from nothing - that is foolish. What an unsustainable universe means is that there are other dimensions from whence it came, and on which it is dependant.

    As I have pointed out, there needs be, under 'cause and effect', an entity which is infinitely dimensional and which can 'dictate'/effect dimensional directions and laws.

    Cause and Effect, negates the possibility of summat/something from nowt/nothing - energy and mass need causality.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  12. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    Just because the universe as is, is not sustainable, does not mean it came from nothing - that is foolish. What an unsustainable universe means is that there are other dimensions from whence it came, and on which it is dependant.
    But those dimensions would still be part of the universe then, not separate from it.

  13. #73
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    Castle - What you are proposing is the 'creation' of the physical and temporal universe at or before the 'big Bang', from nothing.
    Nope. There was no nothing before the Big Bang; there was no "before the Big Bang". Time is not eternal; the Big Bang created it. I am merely proposing that the initial state of the universe was the Big Bang, much as Chad proposes that the "initial" state of the universe was God.
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  14. #74
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Castle - This initial 'Big Bang' state you propose, is this temporal and physical in nature?

    If so, we have some big problems if it stayed as it was in a form of stacis from eternity - acaused, and did not 'move and shake' and 'create'/make/instigate laws - 'previous' as well as the 'universe's 'laws', there would have to be more dimensions, and they need not be anything like those which make up the physicality of the 'current' universe, indeed they could not be limited thus. It just doesn't add up. What causes a system that is locked within a set of laws to change? The laws need to change in order for the system to change - chicken and egg. But what could cause a previous system that is locked within its own laws to change its nature, without some external and 'special' intervention? Seems like more questions are being generated than answers.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  15. #75
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    Castle - This initial 'Big Bang' state you propose, is this temporal and physical in nature?
    Yes.

    If so, we have some big problems if it stayed as it was in a form of stacis from eternity
    Nope. No eternities involved. Time started 13.7 billion years ago. This is the main issue with your point.

    You seem to think I'm saying the Big Bang sat around for a few eternities and then randomly exploded. I'm skipping the eternities and just starting time right at the explosion.
    Freedom is you choosing for yourself. Law is the government choosing for you. The two are opposites.

    Pray - To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce
    Faith - Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge about things without parallel - Ambrose Bierce

  16. #76
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    Nope. No eternities involved. Time started 13.7 billion years ago. This is the main issue with your point.

    You seem to think I'm saying the Big Bang sat around for a few eternities and then randomly exploded. I'm skipping the eternities and just starting time right at the explosion.
    ...uh, so if there were "eternities" before the Big Bang, how can you say that time "starts" at the Big Bang?


    _________________________________ Post Merged _________________________________


    Quote Originally Posted by Castle
    The beginning of a universe with a finite past was never in a different state at a prior moment; there were no prior moments.
    That's wrong by definition. If a universe has a finite past, then at some point prior, the universe didn't exist. Thus, there was a state prior to the universe.
    Last edited by CliveStaples; August 7th, 2008 at 03:42 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  17. #77
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    Just because the universe as is, is not sustainable, does not mean it came from nothing - that is foolish.
    wouldn't be the first time I've been foolish. What about it is foolish, though? Many things that seem foolish, such as schroedinger's cat and bending light are a reality. In fact, the spontaneous eruption of matter in the universe is a daily and unstoppable event, happening all around us. I took this astronomy course where the professor explained that matter and antimatter are continuously arising from absolutely nothing, apparently borrowing a bit from nothing only to pay it back almost immediately by colliding again and releasing energy. Steven Hawking predicted this phenomenon due to the mathematics of quantum mechanics. He later observed evidence from Black holes of this phenomenon (where one particle, either the matter or the antimatter) popped into existence on one side of the black hole's event horizon and the other on the outside. The first was sucked into the black hole at the speed of light and the other shot out at the same speed due to Newtonian Mechanics. The result is that black holes are "leaky" and eventually die. The universe is not, perhaps, such a rigid place as it might at first appear.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fruit n Nut
    What an unsustainable universe means is that there are other dimensions from whence it came, and on which it is dependant.
    Still not sure what you mean by unsustainable. If you're talking about entropy, that's an interesting point. There is a tendency in the Universe for all things to go from organized to disorganized (casual inspection of my living environment is evidence for this). At the same time, the most perfectly ordered and organized scenario is one in which there is nothing . . . per the law of entropy, the state of an absolute and perfect vacuum is the perfect breeding ground for an explosive and violent start to existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by F&N
    As I have pointed out, there needs be, under 'cause and effect', an entity which is infinitely dimensional and which can 'dictate'/effect dimensional directions and laws.
    For me it doesn't, I'm slowly adjusting to a universe where things aren't always as they appear.

    Quote Originally Posted by F&N
    Cause and Effect, negates the possibility of summat/something from nowt/nothing - energy and mass need causality.
    For day-to-day things, I'm in agreement. But we know that for the microscopic and vastly macroscopic worlds, the mundane rules that best describe our surroundings don't apply. Things come from nothing, light bends, time is unstable, dimensions are plastic. Newton had it right for many things, but not for things the size of the universe.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  18. #78
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    65
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    That's wrong by definition. If a universe has a finite past, then at some point prior, the universe didn't exist. Thus, there was a state prior to the universe.
    Actually it is not wrong by definition. According the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, our three spatial and one temporal dimension are interwoven into spacetime which is a part/feature of our universe. Since our temporal dimension is part of our universe, no universe means no temporal dimension. Therefore there was no “prior to the universe” as measured by our temporal dimension since our temporal dimension did not exist “prior to the universe”.

    Of course you could speculate that there exists some other temporal dimension outside of our universe which can be used to measure a time prior to our universe. But again, this is just speculation.

  19. #79
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Nope. There was no nothing before the Big Bang; there was no "before the Big Bang". Time is not eternal; the Big Bang created it. I am merely proposing that the initial state of the universe was the Big Bang, much as Chad proposes that the "initial" state of the universe was God.

    What 'caused the 'Big Bang'? Nothing? As we say here in Yorkshire, "Thee gets owt fer nowt" {You get nothing for nothing.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  20. #80
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Feedback
    According the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, our three spatial and one temporal dimension are interwoven into spacetime which is a part/feature of our universe. Since our temporal dimension is part of our universe, no universe means no temporal dimension. Therefore there was no “prior to the universe” as measured by our temporal dimension since our temporal dimension did not exist “prior to the universe”.
    There's the logical fallacy right there. Just because our universe has a temporal dimension doesn't mean that temporal dimensions are only found in our universe. That would be speculation.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

 

 
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Atheist's Cosmological Argument
    By Castle in forum Religion
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: February 25th, 2012, 08:32 AM
  2. Why pure Agnosticism/Skepticism is flawed
    By Apokalupsis in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: October 14th, 2006, 06:14 PM
  3. Arguments, Fallacies, and Authority
    By Apokalupsis in forum Fallacious Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 27th, 2004, 02:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •