Zone
RPG Townie
Posts: 181
|
Post by Zone on Nov 15, 2002 20:52:01 GMT -5
What seed are YOU?
|
|
celticshiva
RPG Townie
"Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me." --Mr. Scott
Posts: 296
|
Post by celticshiva on Nov 15, 2002 22:26:18 GMT -5
But yet it exists and as you say existance has to have a causeless cause. It can't both exist and 'not exist'. Are you trying to imply that it dosn't exist?
Perhaps when you give him a coherent definition he will =). I have to admit I'm curious too.
While what you have said could make sense there is nothing that MUST be true based on what we know. There's a link missing that makes it an uncertain theory.. which is NOT to say that your theory is false.. just hard to say either way. If you could connect it to what is 'real' and 'known' then perhaps I'd be willing to consider this position. I guess I'm trying to say your argument lacks evidence.
Well, as we understand more and more about Quantum Physics it could well be argued that nothing exists and that the universe is nothing but a construct of the mind. The from what I've read, Mahayana Buddhists hold a similar thought that all reality is an illusion.
Yes, this I can agree with. There may be other possibilities but I'm at a loss to think of them at this time.
Yes, but science can't find out what happened 'before' the big bang. Hell, science can't even go back all the way TO the big bang.. all of the math breaks down at a fraction of a second after the big bang at 10^-43 seconds (also known as plack time, a very important number in quantum physics its believed to be the shortest concievable measure of time)
We know that the universe created with a 'bang' and we know that its going to extend a certain distance before beginning to collapse on itself. We know that the universe will eventually collapse into a 'big crunch'. Now at the time of the 'big crunch' the universe is in the same form as it was during the big bang, a microscopic cosmos of extremely high-intensity energy and it is quite possible.. in fact I dare say inevitable, due to the energy potential present, that another big bang will arise out of that maelstrom. Hence the universe is eternal, as this cycle neither has a beginning nor an end, and the 'big bang' that started this cycle is not the complete beginning.
I guess it could be argued that the cycle itself is god and only this 'phase' constitutes as a universe.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 16, 2002 6:07:44 GMT -5
So your basically saying "Everything needs God, except God, 'cause God is God and therefore doesn't need God 'cause he's God"? That which is contingent is eventually reliant upon neccesity, and that which is neccesary is reliant upon nothing. This is true for God because he comes before time, and therefore is not reliant upon cause.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 16, 2002 6:38:26 GMT -5
But yet it exists and as you say existance has to have a causeless cause. It can't both exist and 'not exist'. Are you trying to imply that it dosn't exist? (Note:Aquinas argued that God transcends the line of existence and non-existence (not that I agree).) I am saying that all existence within time is reliant upon cause. That which is outside of time cannot be caused because it has always been. How many times do I have to say it? a) Infinite, timeless. b) Has the ability to cause. It is my strong oppinion that we cannot ever truly 'know' anything EXCEPT for one thing. Existence exists. 'Cogito ergo sum'. And from this sole certainty I draw my argument. The idea that reality is an illusion is a very interesting one. Reminds me of the 'what is real' speech by Morpheus in the matrix. But there is one thing for certain - that I exist. Maybe not as I think I do, in a body - maybe Im a brain in a jar somewhere. But the very fact I can ask the question 'do I exist' shows that I do in some shape or form. Maybe no one else exists, but I do. You said it yourself, 'construct of the mind'. The mind proves existence. I'd be happy to hear suggestions of more. Actually, the big crunch theory is not only under great jeapordy, but has been disproven. I find it odd how scientists can suggest possible theories and they suddenly become well known facts. Heres the link news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 16, 2002 16:40:21 GMT -5
One mustn’t interpret to give it a different meaning. As long as one remembers the context of surrounding material, using the simplest form and not interpreting is necessary (unless it is a work of fiction, but if you want to concede from the start the Bible is fiction, fine by me). Now, your example is quite amusing. You simply taking a verse out of context (and to think atheists get accused of this by Christians!), just like someone saying that the Bible proves atheism because it says “there is no god”. However, this ignores the context of the verse. The problem with your bit (A verse is appreciated next time. I had a good idea where to look in Galatians, but I would rather not have to spend time in a search) is that you ignore the context. Perhaps you should have read the context of Galatians 3:26-28? “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” I suppose Romans 10:12 doesn’t ring a bell in reference to this? “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” I suppose you can understand such verses without the need to interpret. But then again, liberals such as yourself really only feel the need to interpret in light of verses they don’t like (Hell, the command to hate your family, etc.) , or understand as nonsense (Creation, Noah’s Ark, Jonah and the Whale, etc.). That’s a lovely interpretation. Too bad v. 26 says to hate your family, not their actions. I notice you have yet to quote this evidence for contemporary historians… www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html - Deals with the claims that Jesus is written about in the Talmud, and also shows how it can account for Christianity without the need of a Jesus. It’s a pity that other historical figures can be accounted for through either writings, contemporary historians, or physical evidence. A greater pity that none of these are there for Jesus. Wrong. If you had a contemporary historian to support your claims, then you’d have very strong evidence that a historic Jesus existed. However, you don’t. This tactic implies that nothing would be accepted by myself as evidence, despite that I am saying that being able to cite one would qualify as evidence, and is also used to mask the fact you cannot cite one.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 16, 2002 16:41:11 GMT -5
Then you should say “power corrupts”, not “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, because now you argue the latter is false. You are being inconsistent with Tillich, as you have agreed with Tillich that god is the “ground of being”, or “being-itself, not a being”, and yet are at the same time saying god is a being. That is called being inconsistent. God has no wants or desires? That’s not what the Bible says, last time I remember… Not to mention you reduce god to an automaton. Tillich and Robinson go on the same bit that god is “being-itself”, or “ultimate reality”. You originally brought up Tillich. Are you now trying to deny you had anything to do with supporting Tillich? I suppose it’s moot as to whether you’re thinking. Basically, you’re saying your view isn’t falsifible, because you cannot imagine any other possibilities. You’ve said existence itself needs a causal explanation, more specifically, a causeless cause. You apparently either don’t understand what you’re saying, or haven’t read my rebuttals. Now, for the millionth time (not that I expect you to understand this time), causality PRESUPPOSES existence. Existence cannot require a causal explanation because existence is what makes causal explanations possible. Even your own fallacious argument highlights this. If god causes existence, god ALREADY EXISTS, in which case EXISTENCE ALREADY IS. Which is why existence itself doesn’t need an explanation (because asking one is a meaningless question) because otherwise you’re saying that something comes from nothing, which last time I remember, the cosmological argument has, as a premise, that this is not the case due to inductive observations. You don’t understand your own argument, as I’ve dealt with it several times now. Since you’ve yet to deal with it, I’ll simply copy-paste it (since I hate wasting time typing the same thing again): “In addition, it's a non-sequitir to say causality can be without existence. Causality PRESUPPOSES existence. You cannot have causality without existence, which is why existence itself doesn't need a causal explanation! You destroy the context in which causality is based, thus undercutting your very argument! Just as existence is a causal primary, matter is a metaphysical primary. Matter is unconditional- as inductively we have never observed the creation nor destruction of matter- it does not depend on anything for its existence. Your use of "contingent existence" and "creation" involves various equivocation fallacies. When one says something has been brought about, or caused, we are saying that it has come from pre-existing materials, which is the metaphysical primary, matter. When we say something has ceased to be, it has changed the composition of the matter composing it, but it has in neither case involved the creation nor destruction of matter. The only real meaningful sense "contingent existence" bears is that a given thing within the universe has a certain form- this form could be different given different causal conditions- but that everything still is based upon something which does not depend on anything. As such, in the proper context, everything necessarily exists.”
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 16, 2002 16:42:49 GMT -5
See above. It’s been dealt with already. Existence isn’t contingent, it is a causal primary. Existence doesn’t cause its own existence, because causality presupposes existence, because a thing must exist first to be a causal agent. Otherwise, you’re saying something comes from nothing. As existence has no cause (since I think we both agree something doesn’t come from nothing), it has no beginning, and always was that way. You confuse contingent existence, which only deals with the form of existence, not existence itself. Such as to say “This chair is contingent in the sense that it could be different under different causal conditions, but the matter that makes it up depends on nothing. Matter, making up the universe, is a metaphysical primary. Everything exists necessarily, but the forms of existence are contingent.” Try reading my rebuttals sometime. Perhaps to explain disjunctive syllogisms to those unfamiliar with them, you might just say: 1. a or b. 2. ~a. 3. Therefore, b. After all, you should expect me to know it. All the Big Bang shows is that time and the universe AS WE KNOW IT began. I did say previous “Whether or not time existed prior to the Big Bang is a moot point, and non-falsifible in either position.” As Celtic pointed out, scientists cannot know about the moment of the Big Bang, or prior to it. So assumptions are unwarranted on your part. In addition, people have not observed the creation nor destruction of matter, which only means that we cannot say matter is contingent. I notice you have nothing against an infinite regress, other than that you misconstrue science. So let’s all arbitrary posit a first cause where we like, even if science hasn’t completely researched something. Never mind that the reasoning for a first cause is flagrant question begging. False dilemma. In addition, it hasn’t been shown that matter is dependent upon anything. Positing a god for such is both an unwarranted assumption and against science. I asked whether god has reasons for his actions. If so, what caused these reasons? If god has no reasons for his actions, then really bad implications arise… So much for the free will defense to the Problem of Evil.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 16, 2002 16:43:33 GMT -5
Considering you couldn’t stand discussing religion last time, Mr. MikeXD, I don’t understand why you’ve returned, especially so soon. Have you matured enough to handle such?
Judging from your style of argumentation (blatant assertion), I see not. Does the concept of evidence play any part in your religion, or do you blindly follow your religion without question? Last time I remember, the Catholic Church believes god can be demonstrated by reason. Are you unable to do demonstrate god through reason, and as such have to parrot quotes from the Bible, as if that meant anything?
Since you like blatant assertions, I’ll respond in kind:
Surah 5:72-73-
Unbelievers are those that say: “God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.” For the Messiah himself said: “Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. He that worships other deities besides God, God will deny him Paradise, and the Fire shall be his home. None shall help the evil-doers. Unbelievers are those that say: “God is one of three.” There is but one God. If they do not desist from so saying, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished.
Better repent Mike, or else hell awaits you!
Any evidence for such, or just defining it as such without evidence? I notice you also didn’t read my bit about matter.
That doesn’t tell me what god is. What qualities does god have? How many times must *I* ask that?
Actually, you mean to say “Nothing can ever truly be known except that I exist.” Cogito, ergo sum only shows that I myself exist. The rest of the world could be a delusion, according to Descartes. From this one could construct a solipsist argument that because I know that I exist with certainty, I eternally exist and require no cause. How could one deal with birth and death? One doesn’t remember before their birth (but they claim to have existed), and since their own body doesn’t exist (since one cannot trust their senses), one doesn’t die. Notice this entire argument isn’t falsifible. As such, it’s not possible to rationally discuss this argument. Now, as I have pointed out countless times, your argument plays upon similar non-falsifible ideas. Until you deal with such, you cannot rationally argue.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 16, 2002 16:44:32 GMT -5
Hilary Putnam would argue against the BIV claim under the new theory of meaning. Try giving him a read sometime. Once again, cogito ergo sum only proves the existence of oneself, nothing more. From there, one can construct the above argument. The BOOMERANG and MAXIMA experiments give evidence that the universe is MOSTLY flat. General relativity also predicts space can be curved, which, if memory serves, happens with individual objects. Evidence exists that space can become curved, and has been shown to be correct. It may, however, be necessary to wait for a GUT of physics. However, I should point out that the implications of a flat universe wouldn’t be to your liking, if such is true. According to NASA: • If space has negative curvature, there is insufficient mass to cause the expansion of the Universe to stop. In such a case, the Universe has no bounds, and will expand forever. This is called an open Universe. • If space has no curvature (i.e, it is flat), there is exactly enough mass to cause the expansion to stop, but only after an infinite amount of time. Thus, the Universe has no bounds and will also expand forever, but with the rate of expansion gradually approaching zero after an infinite amount of time. This is termed a flat Universe or a Euclidian Universe (because the usual geometry of non-curved surfaces that we learn in high school is called Euclidian geometry). • If space has positive curvature, there is more than enough mass to stop the present expansion of the Universe. The Universe in this case is not infinite, but it has no end (just as the area on the surface of a sphere is not infinite but there is no point on the sphere that could be called the "end"). The expansion will eventually stop and turn into a contraction. Thus, at some point in the future the galaxies will stop receding from each other and begin approaching each other as the Universe collapses on itself. This is called a closed Universe. So, if the universe is flat, it is also infinite. Not exactly in accord with what you have been arguing… However, NASA continues: In reality, determining the value of the density parameter and thus the ultimate fate of the Universe remains one of the major unsolved problems in modern cosmology. The recently (June 30, 2001) launched MAP mission will be able to measure the value definitively within the next 5 years. map.gsfc.nasa.gov/So, in reality, it’s a tad premature on your part to claim that the Big Crunch notion is disproven, and that the universe is flat. Although last I recall there isn’t evidence to support the Big Crunch, a shrug of the shoulders until evidence emerges is the best position to take. Positing a god to explain things is simple god of the gaps fallacy.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 16, 2002 17:20:52 GMT -5
One mustn’t interpret to give it a different meaning. As long as one remembers the context of surrounding material, using the simplest form and not interpreting is necessary (unless it is a work of fiction, but if you want to concede from the start the Bible is fiction, fine by me). Now, your example is quite amusing. You simply taking a verse out of context (and to think atheists get accused of this by Christians!), .... I suppose you can understand such verses without the need to interpret. But then again,(Creation, Noah’s Ark, Jonah and the Whale, etc.). I took the verse out of context deliberately as a parallel. When you read a verse you do not take into account historical context or matters of translation, simply a one sided oppinion of negativity, laughing at any attempt to interpret the verse. Jesus said 'Love they neighbour'. Perhaps there was an error in the ranging accounts, perhaps such a verse was added later, perhaps the exact words were forgotten. Still, we must not throw all Jesus' other teachings out of the window when we come accross a contraversial verse. I notice you are argueing from repetition. Its at the bottom - www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/HistJesus7.htmJesus can be accounted for via writings, very few people can be accounted for through official contemporary historians (due to the fact that historians dont write about events until they become important), and almost all things mentioned in the story of Jesus have been discovered (as well as the questionable new evidence of the James box). If there WAS a contemporary historian you would simply argue that it was forged by the apostles because generally historians do not account for events until several years later, and until the event becomes very significant. At the time, Jesus was not important enough to be recorded in very prestigious historian's text books.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 16, 2002 17:35:11 GMT -5
Then you should say “power corrupts”, not “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, because now you argue the latter is false. Look, its just a poetic sentence, not a law of nature. I expect if someone said to you 'you can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink' you would argue that you could through a complex system of pulleys and tubes. For the I-dont-knowth time. I have not said God is the ground of being! How many times do I have to say that? Everyone else whos read my posts has realised that, why not you? This is when we come to the extra qualities of God. At the moment I am argueing for an automaton, but different religions disagree on the rest of his ontology. Some say bonevelence, others molevelence. These qualities really simply depend on belief. *screams very loudly* YES! I was presenting an alternative oppinion to the definition of God, aside from mine. You seem to have latched onto it and wont get off! [qupte]I suppose it’s moot as to whether you’re thinking. [/quote] But even if I am just thinking that I am thinking it shows that I have thought. The existence of an eternal being is existing but not the existence of finite beings. Finite existence is very different from Infinite existence since, according to my argument, finite cannot exist without first the infinite. My argument is that scientifically, finite existence began and that the universe is reliant because it is finite.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 16, 2002 17:46:14 GMT -5
Perhaps to explain disjunctive syllogisms to those unfamiliar with them, you might just say: 1. a or b. 2. ~a. 3. Therefore, b. After all, you should expect me to know it. All the Big Bang shows is that time and the universe AS WE KNOW IT began. I did say previous “Whether or not time existed prior to the Big Bang is a moot point, and non-falsifible in either position.” As Celtic pointed out, scientists cannot know about the moment of the Big Bang, or prior to it. So assumptions are unwarranted on your part. In addition, people have not observed the creation nor destruction of matter, which only means that we cannot say matter is contingent. I notice you have nothing against an infinite regress, other than that you misconstrue science. First you say that time began at the big bang then you say we do not know whether time existed prior to the big bang. Isn't this a contradiction? I come to the conclusion of causeless cause by process of elimination of all logically conceivable theories of existence and disjunct. Cause and effect are eternally correlated. When one thing moves we know that another thing moves because of that last thing. The beggining of the universe shows the first thing to move. However, because the universe is not infinite we must seek something prior or outside the big bang and also prior or outside of time. The reasons were caused by his ontology. The very fact that the universe exists shows that there is more to his ontology than simply ability to cause and timelesness. Not really. Read the end of my post again. The part about the outside agent.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 16, 2002 17:50:17 GMT -5
Any evidence for such, or just defining it as such without evidence? I notice you also didn’t read my bit about matter. No direct empirical evidence as such, rather direct empirical implications by manner of disjunct. You just want me to answer something which you can make contradict itself which I am not going to do. I am standing by these qualities. I agree with Descartes there. As I said, the argument is falsifiable if a) nothing existed or if b) the universe could be proven beyond doubt to be a brute fact.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 16, 2002 18:00:51 GMT -5
Hilary Putnam would argue against the BIV claim under the new theory of meaning. Try giving him a read sometime. Once again, cogito ergo sum only proves the existence of oneself, nothing more. From there, one can construct the above argument. The fact that something exists is the foundation of the argument. The first premise. The big crunch theory, while not only having no evidence going for it, has no evidence that even if it was true would cause another explosion. This is sounding awefully like a case of 'Well you can't prove it ISN'T true either!' argument. I suppose we just have to wait 5 years.
|
|
celticshiva
RPG Townie
"Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me." --Mr. Scott
Posts: 296
|
Post by celticshiva on Nov 16, 2002 18:20:59 GMT -5
Hm.. well IF time was created with the universe (which is possible), and assuming that the universe requires a cause (which I'm still not sure). Then yes, I can agree that the universe was caused by something outside of time. However, I would not call any such thing God, for my definition of God differs. In fact, I'm going to stop using that term. I'm going to start reffering to your 'God' as the principle of creation, since it has no other function.
They become 'facts' based on what we know to be true. It becomes a principle of Occam's Razor. We know this must be true.. therefore this must also be true. Before this discovery we believed the universe to be curved, however in light of this, it is obvious that my personal beliefs are incorrect and need to be re-evaluated.
Hm.. this isn't in your definition.. but this means that God cannot be all powerful, for it created without the will to create. An all powerful being would have the power not to create.
Well, there are several other things that MUST be true if the principal of creation is outside time, and timeless. If the principle of creation has no other cause then it has to be immutable because it has no reason to change. In fact, if it had a reason, that reason would have to have a cause. Also, since change requires time by definition, the principle. cannot change. Generally, creation is a process, and a process takes time. You seem to indecate that the "universe would have exploded into existance straight away." so we can assume that it happens instantly. The principle. would have to have changed in order for this to happen. It would have gone from the 'desire' to create to having done so, and therefore it would not have the desire in the same way. Creation is a creative act, and therefore it implies change. Before it wasn't a creator, afterwards it was. The law of causality also states that if an event dosn't take place, then it's because certain causes or conditions were missing. If a seed isn't germinating, then it must be defective, or else lack water, heat or something. An effect cannot occur unless all the neccessary causes and conditions are present. On the other hand, if they are all present, then the effect MUST occur. If it dosn't happen, something must still be missing. So, if this principle contained all of the universe's causes and conditions, it must CONSTANTLY create entire universes.. something like a permanent Big Bang. If it stopped, that would mean that it no longer contained all of the causes and conditions of creation. Therefore it would have changed from having all the causes and conditions to lacking some. Now it could be that he created it progressively. That would require Time, first of all, but also that would mean that God needed other things for creation and he couldn't do it all himself.. he needed some sort of resource. So where did it come from? God would be unable to help us, for our actions happen in time. Why worship a God who could not do anything for us?
|
|