| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
Yet, at the same time also hold the position 'I believe that God exists neccesarily'. Unless you can outline specifically why it must be that God is of such a different nature to the universe, in a way which does not presuppose his existence , then holding the two positions I would argue is not justifiable. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 09 2010 04:55 chessmaster wrote: you were talking about kalam as it related to craig that is where I can see the confusion, but where did I say that it proved God? but eve n in the sense of a cause the same logic applies ,, it merely becomes a semantic debate at this point you can call it first cause or you can call it god .. they essentially perform the same function in your argument Yes, we both agree on that... | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
| ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 09 2010 04:57 XeliN wrote: Just to briefly surmise a point Gnosis, there appears, hopefully for fairly self-explanatory reasons a problematic hypocrisy in holding the position "I don't believe the universe exists necessarily" Yet, at the same time also hold the position 'I believe that God exists neccesarily'. Unless you can outline specifically why it must be that God is of such a different nature to the universe, in a way which does not presuppose his existence , then holding the two positions I would argue is not justifiable. Well it would be what I said in a previous response. As I understand it, the universe came into being (or existence) at a certain point (13.7 billion years ago?) And because it came into existence, it therefore isn't necessary. There are some other things I want to say, but don't know quite how, so I'll wait until you reply to say them. On May 09 2010 05:01 XeliN wrote: Btw please take my question as simply resulting from enjoyment of discussion on these things. Seems like you may be being bombarded and I'm not trying to add to that. No no, it's fine. It's just that for some reason it's been assumed that I'm some theist apologist, looking to defeat every position contrary to mine. I should have hoped my discussion with Miramax "proved" the opposite, I'm really only asking questions because I sincerely want to learn. Apparently some people won't allow for that. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing. this is exactly correct..... one of the three basic questions ontological .. epistemological ... materialistic .. each has its own basic question as it relates to existence and our ability to perceive it...... to suppose why we are even here or why the universe needs a cause it to ask exactly this question | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being. There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains. I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 09 2010 05:12 XeliN wrote: Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing. In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being. There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains. I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point I as understand what you are saying, then we should include the "singularity" (or whatever it is) as part of the universe, and hence we can suggest that this exists necessarily, such that the universe itself exists necessarily. I don't really see what I could disagree with there. If this singularity is a point of breakdown, such that we're dealing with metaphysical claims, then I don't see how I could deny that this, as well as or in place of god, could exist of its own necessity. Is that what you meant? And for you, chessmaster... I'm still looking through Oppy / Mackie / Taylor / Morriston to see where you're coming from. I hadn't read them before in relation to the Kalam, so at least thanks for that. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
gravity strong and weak nuclear forces electricity magnetism (cosmological constant ... anti gravity) space time all of these combine to form one force... this is my god.... it is subject to the same values that craig would logically attempt to use to prove the existence of god based on causality although craig does throw a very strange and unrelated argument of intuition in there which never really made much sense in the way of logic to me as it is nothing more than anecdotal in nature and cannot be effectively quantified or objectively reaoned.... .. or you can could choose a string theory approach of unified dimensions to form the unified existence either would sufiice.. neither postulates any previous existences either before or outside this state or the number of times this process occurs physicists are generally working on understanding how this state caused the big bang by dialing back the clock as close as they can get to the moment of the big bang .. this is what the current particle accelerator or the large hadron collider if you will( L.H.C) is being used for it is dialing back the clock trying to get as close as it can to how particles behaved after the bigbang by producing temperatures that have not existed since the bigbang occured ,, attempting to view the fields in the most unified state possible,,,,, also they want to observe short lived quantum black holes , strange quarks and other phenomenon that are predicted by the experiment | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
Although I would assume your belief in god does not rest on this point, and there are a huge number of things that have presumably led you to the belief that God's existence and role in creation is more persuasive, or justifiable, than the notion of the universes necessary existence. I just wanted to highlight the earlier contradiction. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 09 2010 05:27 Severedevil wrote: The Universe is, by definition, the set of all things that exist. If time exists, time is part of the universe. If God exists, God is part of the universe. For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless. I'm not sure, I think that's breaching little more than semantics, and is really dependent upon whether or not you view the universe as created, or eternal (i.e. if there was a point where only god existed, then this comprised "the universe," which had added to it our universe... or something like that). On May 09 2010 05:26 XeliN wrote: I'm not too certain on the physical side of this, but yeah that is my point. There is nothing about the nature of the universe that shows that "It exists neccesarily" is any less of a sound and justifiable assertion than "God exists neccesarily", at least purely from a scientific understanding of the universe. Although I would assume your belief in god does not rest on this point, and there are a huge number of things that have presumably led you to the belief that God's existence and role in creation is more persuasive, or justifiable, than the notion of the universes necessary existence. I just wanted to highlight the earlier contradiction. Seems to make sense, I'll have to look into it more. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
The Universe is, by definition, the set of all things that exist. If time exists, time is part of the universe. If God exists, God is part of the universe. For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless. yeah this argument is used in the debate link provided on the other page ,, another simple logical contradiction someone else provided it but i found it entertaining .......here i will provide it again http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Existence-of-God-is-unlikely/1/ this however is autonomous to the point i was making ( i was merely demonstrating the first cause argument does not prove the existence of god logically )it is based on some of the same principals.... this is a debate whether the existence of god is unlikely or likely as a result some of the ideas are based on more informal logic equations and not a simple direct contradiction proof ... so do not assume all of these arguments relate to the thesis i made you will probably find it more interesting than the regurgitated position i have been forced to make over and over again until acknowledgment | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4838 Posts
On May 09 2010 05:30 Gnosis wrote: I'm not sure, I think that's breaching little more than semantics, and is really dependent upon whether or not you view the universe as created, or eternal. The Kalam fails to define "time" or "the universe", and then plays with those undefined terms. It is a semantic game. I defined the term that I used. I did not define "time" or "God" since your/WLG's argument is the one predicated on them and therefore defining them is your/WLG's responsibility. If you want to use a different definition of the universe, present it. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
This really isn't meant to be a defense of God, religion, etc. or anything else, but rather a call to accept that perhaps we may not know as much as we believe we do. And so long as we argue on the basis of something we do not know or understand to be irrefutably true, what makes an atheist any different from a theist? The truth is we're arguing with eachother along two completely different lines of thought. The theist will argue on possibility whereas the atheist's argument is completely about probability simply because he cannot make any definitive statement as to what exactly is impossible. So where is the big conflict here? If anything, exploring science has completely blown my mind and shown me that things that I would have considered logically impossible before are indeed possible and that there is seemingly no end to the depth of knowledge in this universe that we've yet to unlock and who knows what the next door to discovery will reveal? Critical thinking and reasoning are certainly important skills to apply in our everyday lives much like Newtonian physics is consistent enough to have real-world applications, but their relevance sharply drops when it comes to discussions of absolute truth because we simply have no fundamental knowledge of absolute truth beyond our shared human experience on which to base any discussions (and in the case of Newtonian physics, we've since learned that the nature of the universe is quite different from what Newton envisioned...). I feel in many ways science has made me more open to the possibility of religion than anything, which is why I am always saddened when religious zealots wage their wars against scientific progress. My belief is that if one has true faith in his religion, he need not fear the potential of scientific knowledge debunking it because you would have enough faith to believe it won't happen since science only seeks to uncover truth rather than impose it. Besides, if your religion can somehow be proven wrong beyond any doubt, wouldn't you want to know anyway? Why do people fear knowledge? | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
we cannot even agree that is someone tries to use logic than they are not exempt from the logic they attempt to use he keeps saying he does not understand ,,, however because he is providing much more difficult concepts than those in his model i can deduce he is intentionally not understanding them for whatever reason or does not actually understand the values of his own model and is just throwing out terms the terms are based on values,, the contradiction proof is nothing more than simple math i am in know way attempting to insult you , but i am really starting to think you might not understand the very model you are using ..... the logical debunk is very straightforward and uses the very concepts used in your model,,,, therefore i can assume if you do not honestly understand my reply , you honestly do not understand your model... if i also assume i am correctly communicating it( which i am) he claims a logical reason for his god not to need a cause and i applied the same values or equalities to the unified state of the universe ,, but fro some reason he does not understand what this implies i am really trying to put it as simply as i can but the 5 or 10 times i have tried i honestly have done it as conclusively as i am able , ..... if you cannot understand the linguistic values and their implications , i assume you probably would not understand the mathematical ones if i were to demonstrate the contradiction in these terms | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
If not, I'll do it in thread, but I don't think it would be appropriate. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
yeah i have provided enough information for you to educate your self at this point | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 09 2010 06:19 chessmaster wrote: i am essentially saying the same thing every one else is......just in a different way .. in a more mathematical way using words as values yeah i have provided enough information for you to educate your self at this point No, you're saying more than they have. You're going deeper than they have. The problem with your replies is that you're assuming I know more than I do, merely because I'm familiar with "complex models" (a safe but not always accurate induction. I am not formally educated in this area, so while I do have fairly good knowledge of the subject, it's not where it should be, nor is it complete). If you don't want to continue, that's fine. Well, maybe I'll look through all your replies again later on, but right now, I need to read up to see what your presuppositions are. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
 i will equate my words ( values ) to the ones he uses at the end in very simple form XeliN United Kingdom. May 09 2010 05:12. Posts 831 PM Profile Quote # Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing. In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being. There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains. I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point this post from xelin essentially says the same thing you say you understand, so if i can relate my values with his you should be able to grasp them his term dual position = my term contradiction his term universe incorporates pre and post bigbang= the same as mine does with unified field and post bigbang since this equality has been shown to exist outside of time t ....he unified field is enternal and thus does not require a cause ... i.e as he said the universe did not spring into being from nothingness .. ok follow me so far ? as of now i have equated every term he used valuewise ...with every one i used , so now using purely your own logic , it can be shown that the universe does not require a cause== hence contradiction = his term once again dual position you claimed god was outside of time and its rules of causation ... i apply the same value to the universes unified forces and pre-big bang state...... he applies it to pre and post big bang which is really saying the same thing so we can conclude according to your own logic god is not needed for a cause as the universe is its own cause ( once again the universe did not spring from nothing xelins terms you claim to understand) , just as you claim god is his own cause ,,, you follow ? while we are saying slightly different things the essential values are the same and can be interchangable | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 09 2010 06:24 chessmaster wrote: XeliN United Kingdom. May 09 2010 05:12. Posts 831 PM Profile Quote # Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing. In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being. There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains. I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point this post from xelin essentially says the same thing you say you understand his term dual position = my term contradiction his term universe incorporates pre and post bigbang= the same as mine does with unified field since this equality has been shown to exist outside time , using purely your own logic , it cn be shown that the universe does not require a cause== hence contradiction You are saying, then, that the universe is eternal in the sense that it existed in one state (singularity) which moved to a different state, the expanded universe we experienced today, correct? So you are making a metaphysical claim, rather than a scientific one, for the former state? | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
