God/Prime Mover is necessary

desertwolf9
Theist
desertwolf9's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-11-15
User is offlineOffline
God/Prime Mover is necessary

Take a look at the universe. It's a series of cause & effect reactions. However, there can't be an infinite series of causers. That is impossible. There HAS to be a prime mover, and that mover is god or anything analogous to such. Saying that there are no beginnings is ridiculous IMO, all one has to to do is follow them back.

 

Some of you might say " but why assume that there must be a beginning when we have yet to encounter it?"

 

Because it's illogical - just because we haven't encountered it doesn't make it not so. You simply have to decide whether you want to rely on logic, or data.

 

Hence, because of the necessity of a prime mover, there must be a god. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?

 

Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.

 

Thoughts?


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle PREEMPTIVE

MattShizzle PREEMPTIVE STRIKE! wrote:
Not this shit again. (with picture of cat)

Explain why this 'Prime Mover' has to be a sentient being and not some natural phenomena.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
For fucks sake! This asshat

For fucks sake! This asshat got my cat already so now he gets this one:

I'm guessing at this point The Not This Shit Again cat would be Darth Approved, but I don't see her as sufficient. Maybe a NTSA Dragon flaming a church?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Take a

desertwolf9 wrote:

Take a look at the universe. It's a series of cause & effect reactions. However, there can't be an infinite series of causers. That is impossible. There HAS to be a prime mover, and that mover is god or anything analogous to such. Saying that there are no beginnings is ridiculous IMO, all one has to to do is follow them back.

Some of you might say " but why assume that there must be a beginning when we have yet to encounter it?"

Because it's illogical - just because we haven't encountered it doesn't make it not so. You simply have to decide whether you want to rely on logic, or data.

Hence, because of the necessity of a prime mover, there must be a god. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?

Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.

 Thoughts?

 

 

Would the "first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause" that you believe must exist be finite or infinite ?

 

 

 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Take a

desertwolf9 wrote:

Take a look at the universe. It's a series of cause & effect reactions. However, there can't be an infinite series of causers. That is impossible. There HAS to be a prime mover, and that mover is god or anything analogous to such. Saying that there are no beginnings is ridiculous IMO, all one has to to do is follow them back.

Infinite regression. Mover's mover and that mover etc.

 

Quote:
Some of you might say " but why assume that there must be a beginning when we have yet to encounter it?" 

Because it's illogical - just because we haven't encountered it doesn't make it not so. You simply have to decide whether you want to rely on logic, or data.

Presupposition is illogical. Using double negatives is illogical =  doesn't not

The decision to believe is neither based upon logic nor data since it functions without regard to the two.

The decision to not believe is based upon logic and the absence of data supporting the premise.

 

Quote:
Hence, because of the necessity of a prime mover, there must be a god. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?

Which god?

 

Quote:
Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.

Why can't everything just have an uncaused cause? If this unmoved mover can be the effect of no cause then  the 'beginning' could also be the effect of no cause?

 

Quote:
Thoughts?

Yes, thank you. I have them. Would you like some?

It isn't your fault that you have this presupposition of a prime mover. We've all had stages in our lives where we've cried out in woe to the empty air hoping for an answer. When none came, we had to rationalize in one way or another why such a travesty of life could be permitted.

However, in rationalizing that cause and effect are applicable to non-sentient matter, we forced our anthropomorphic principle into the gaps of our understanding. In other words, we made god(s) to thrust the responsibility of our care onto when we could not manage the consequences of our actions.

We searched the causes going back as far as we could to find out the answer as to why things happen and when we finally surrendered the search we got lazy and threw up our hands with an exasperated cry of "god did it."

When those around us heard the lamentation and helped us examine the situation only to discover that it was indeed our own fault for the travail, we spent countless hours in denial. After which, we held onto the last thing that comforted us in our darkest moment and tried to force everyone else to follow along with the story so as not to damage our sensitive natures with an idle folly called TRUTH.

Now, thousands of years later we are yet again faced with the examination of facts that show us that it is only the echo of our cries that speaks to us from the depths of the still black night.

A realization that it is foolish, not just illogical, to hold the empty air accountable for what we have wrought creeps into our thoughts and we are granted yet another chance to face ourselves or scream "No fair!" into the bleak nightscape again.

How's that for thinking?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Take a look at the

Quote:
Take a look at the universe. It's a series of cause & effect reactions. However, there can't be an infinite series of causers. That is impossible. There HAS to be a prime mover, and that mover is god or anything analogous to such. Saying that there are no beginnings is ridiculous IMO, all one has to to do is follow them back.

wolf, I'm going to start by giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you're simply stuck in the same boat as me, and be kind:

Things prior to the point of singularity in the universe just don't intuit.

 

Here's the thing - time is it's own sort-of 'dimension' (an 'axis', if you will, similar to our X, Y, and Z axis's). When the universe was in it's symmetrical state where it existed as a singularity, time as we know it did not apply. Asking what was 'before' or what 'caused' the singularity might well just be a nonsensical question, since 'before' and causation would've perhaps been inapplicable terms.

There is also some research to suggest that the universe may have been spawned from the crushing force of a black hole, and that each black hole ultimately does this (again, however, we're merely in the realm of educated speculation).

The thing is, we don't yet have a definitive answer for the origin of the singularity that spawned our universe - though we do have many very promising models (I, personally, am unable to follow them. Sometimes I find my forced ingorance here a tad depressing, but I accept the limitations of my brain in this arena). Arguing for the existence of a deity that magically conjured the singularity into being doesn't actually get us anywhere or answer any big questions; it merely provides the illusion that you know more than you really do, leaving you just as ignorant as a layman like myself who acknowledges that they do not understand astrophysics.

Quote:
Hence, because of the necessity of a prime mover, there must be a god. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?

The first step to stepping away from dogma is to realize when you're making fallacious arguments, like the non sequitor above. Even if there was a need for a 'prime mover', that wouldn't necessitate the existence of a deity. A prime mover might be a completely unintelligent natural process that we simply haven't discovered yet; it might be some kind of infinite loop in space-time triggered by a causality problem; it might be a black hole; etc.

Quote:
Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.

Your 'belief' is ambiguous, then, and that should raise an immediate red flag for you. It means that you're so terribly attached to the idea of a God emotionally that you will shift around the goal-posts in favor of such an entity however you need to. This is not healthy or productive.

Accept the universe for what it is, wolf - and then, perhaps, you might also start accepting yourself for who you are (which no god had any part in making). It's really not so terrible - I promise.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:For fucks

MattShizzle wrote:

For fucks sake! This asshat got my cat already so now he gets this one:

I'm guessing at this point The Not This Shit Again cat would be Darth Approved, but I don't see her as sufficient. Maybe a NTSA Dragon flaming a church?

Yep. It's been a week. That's all that I ask for in reference to new posters. So long as you keep the 'one week' rule in mind then I have nothing to bitch about, Matt.

I'm glad you're making the effort.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Whatever triggered the Big

Whatever triggered the Big Bang event, or whatever sequence of events in some meta-universe that may have encompassed the event leading to our Universe, colliding m-branes or whatever, nothing requires that event to in any sense whatever to correspond to a conscious super being, which would present much more of an inexplcable mystery than a random 'burp' in the 'fabric' of existence.

'God' is a primitive, childish, incoherent,  poorly thought through fuzzy excuse for an explanation of existence.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:<snip for

desertwolf9 wrote:
<snip for brevity>

A supernatural God does not explain anything, never mind how the universe started.  An explanation is "a statement that makes something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure or operation or circumstances etc.

In what way does invoking God make the origin of the universe more comprehensible? Are we given a clearer understanding of how God does the things God does when we speak of an unmoved mover? Can we replicate or model the causes and effects of supernatural abilities, either in the lab or in simulations? Does the postulation of God as the first cause allow us to make any predictions about the state of the universe now or in the future? Can we test the God hypothesis by examining the universe for supporting evidence?

"Goddidit" is a cop-out, an intellectual shrug, an abandonment of curiosity, reason, and the human imagination. It does not provide us with any information, any clarity, any insight into the nature or operations of the universe.  It's intellectual cowardice, the refusal to admit that you just don't know.  Dressing one's ignorance up in the clothes of religion is particularly bad, since any examination of the God(s) of religion leads to a defiant and proud proclamation of ignorance under the auspices of faith. 

God is not an explanation for anything; even theologians admit God is unknowable.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Take a

desertwolf9 wrote:
Take a look at the universe. It's a series of cause & effect reactions. However, there can't be an infinite series of causers. That is impossible. There HAS to be a prime mover, and that mover is god or anything analogous to such. Saying that there are no beginnings is ridiculous IMO, all one has to to do is follow them back.

These are just unsupported assertions.

Why can't there be an infinite regression of cause and effect? How is that any less likely than an infinite progression of cause and effect. You just do not understand infinities - if you understood infinities then you would understand how silly your assertions were.

Why must there be a prime mover? everything could have always have been moving. How is this any more unlikely then believing that movement will continue forever in the future.

You can not follow something back to infinity. An infinite regress has no beginning. Why is an infinite regress of god any more likely than in infinite regress of space-time.

desertwolf9 wrote:
Some of you might say " but why assume that there must be a beginning when we have yet to encounter it?"

We have no idea what existed before the big bang.

desertwolf9 wrote:
Because it's illogical - just because we haven't encountered it doesn't make it not so. You simply have to decide whether you want to rely on logic, or data.

Logic says that you have to rely on data.

desertwolf9 wrote:
Hence, because of the necessity of a prime mover, there must be a god. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?

A prime mover is not necessary. God is a useless concept that has been disproved. Why believe in a magic fairy in the sky if it leads to terror and violence and moral degeneracy?

desertwolf9 wrote:
Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.

You just need to work on your imagination. It seems to be stuck on unsubstantiated irrationalities.

There is no logic or argument or evidence supporting any first principle, unmoved mover, or uncaused cause.

 
 

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Take a

desertwolf9 wrote:

Take a look at the universe. It's a series of cause & effect reactions. However, there can't be an infinite series of causers. That is impossible. There HAS to be a prime mover, and that mover is god or anything analogous to such. Saying that there are no beginnings is ridiculous IMO, all one has to to do is follow them back.

 

Some of you might say " but why assume that there must be a beginning when we have yet to encounter it?"

 

Because it's illogical - just because we haven't encountered it doesn't make it not so. You simply have to decide whether you want to rely on logic, or data.

 

Hence, because of the necessity of a prime mover, there must be a god. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?

 

Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.

 

Thoughts?

I see several illogical leaps involved in this uncaused cause.

Assumption 1. You assume that the cause was not natural.

Assumption 2. You assume the cause was intelligent.

Assumption 3. You assume that the intelligent cause survived, and somehow is now a part of the universe.

Assumption 4. You assume that your assumed intelligent, surviving cause is a god.

Assumption 5. You ( most likely, at any rate ) assume that your assumed, intelligent, surviving god is not just any god, but your particular god.

Can you not see the illogic of this? You are making one wild leap after another, with nothing to back up any of your assumptions.

Problem 1. While things do have causes, most of those causes are natural. A tornado has a cause, but that cause is not a supernatural djinn.

Lacking evidence that the cause was supernatural, you must abandon logic and reason to jump to the conclusion that it was not a natural occurance.

Problem 2. Related to problem 1. We understand meteorology enough to know that we do not attribute a tornado to a hostile intelligent wind spirit. We understand weather enough to know that snowflakes aren't sculpted by ice gnomes.

Having failed to establish evidence that the cause was supernatural, you charge blindly ahead by insisting that the still unestablished cause is intelligent. No evidence to back this up, but it is necessary for your delusion, so you ignore the need for logic.

Problem 3. The start of the universe was an incredibly violent event, especially in terms of radiation/heat. We know of nothing material that could possibly have survived this event. We cannot imagine any form of information, and therefore intelligence, that could have been processed in the universe for at least the first 300,000 years.

Since you have haven't bothered demonstrating a reason for problems 1 & 2, it stands to lack of reason that you will even try to demonstrate how intelligence could survive in radioactive plasma.

Problem 4. We have intelligent, natural beings create things all the time. If I build an aquarium, fill it with water, add fish, and sit in the center of it reveling in my creation, I am still only a human being.

Picking up speed on the road to illiogic, you now proclaim victory by having proven without resorting to reason or proof that a god exists.

Problem 5. On the unthinkably slim odds of there actually being a god or gods, our two main contenders for godhood today, Yahweh and Allah, can almost conclusively be demonstrated to be composites of older, pagan gods. Yahweh was originally called EL, which just happens to be the name of the High god of the Canaanites. We can find bits and pieces of Baal embedded in the current Yahweh. If you actually bother to look hard enough you can find all the elements of the polytheistic Canaanite religion in the Bible, from Asherah to high places. Judaism, and later Christianity, is nothing but a splinter religion of a long dead fertility cult from the Canaanites. And Allah? Allah is nothing more than a linguistic variant of El, and just a splinter of the splinter that is the myth Christians pretend is their god.

And now we come to your true folly of the day, because you have achieved the exact opposite of what you sat out to do.  In your effort to prove god, you have used absolutely nothing by way of evidence. You have only managed to create the illusion of defending your belief in your own mind. The only problem here is that you have also shown us atheists how something can indeed be created from nothing.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
how about

A quatum fluxation, that could be the first cause, no god required, no intelligence required, and it is a natural explanation.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
  

 

 


Diagoras23
atheist
Diagoras23's picture
Posts: 77
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Too Easy

Too easy. I would have seen through that when I was six years old. It's pathetic and I'm apathetic. Not worth it. Next.

Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Therefore, isn't it

Quote:
Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?

Quote:
Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.

Jeez, your argument is inconsistent. 

You stated that the first principle or uncaused cause could be the universe itself, that it could be something natural. At the same time, you're referring to the Judeo-Christian Creator.  

You must consider other infinities that apply in this context. How can something exist forever, and why can't there be an infinite series of cause and effect? 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You know, butterbattle, you

You know, butterbattle, you make a point I haven't actually thought of quite like that before - it is totally illogical and inconsistent to object to the idea of an infinite regress of cause-effect, each step of which is in principle understandable, to replace it with an infinite conscious being, which is totally beyond comprehension...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Diagoras23
atheist
Diagoras23's picture
Posts: 77
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Butter than this topic

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." -Marcus Aurelius

Legend Butterbattle

Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You know,

BobSpence1 wrote:

You know, butterbattle, you make a point I haven't actually thought of quite like that before - it is totally illogical and inconsistent to object to the idea of an infinite regress of cause-effect, each step of which is in principle understandable, to replace it with an infinite conscious being, which is totally beyond comprehension...

Yes, exactly. You can usually explain logical arguments much better than I can.

What really irks me on this issue is the method that theists use to debate the scientific perspective of the universe. They point out the flaws of applying the concept of infinity to dimensions of space, time, and to cause and effect, thus, concluding that there's no feasible natural explanation. But then, they assert that their God transcends these problem. Why? Because they said so.

It's infuriating, not only because they start with the premise that their belief system is correct (surprise!), but because the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, conscious, intelligent entity, existing outside of space and time, poofing things into existence is so obviously ludicrous compared to a simple infinite series that the two ideas aren't even in the same league.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Thoughts?

desertwolf9 wrote:

Thoughts?

Yes actually, look up and read all about 'logic' the root word in illogical, and do not post any word stemming from logic until you have.


 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You know,

BobSpence1 wrote:

You know, butterbattle, you make a point I haven't actually thought of quite like that before - it is totally illogical and inconsistent to object to the idea of an infinite regress of cause-effect, each step of which is in principle understandable, to replace it with an infinite conscious being, which is totally beyond comprehension...

 

Hmm...that was the point of my question too.

Guess I need to be clearer.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Take

desertwolf9 wrote:
Take a look at the universe. It's a series of cause & effect reactions.

 

OK, I find no fault with your words up to this point. After that, you are heading out on a limb.

 

desertwolf9 wrote:
However, there can't be an infinite series of causers. That is impossible.

 

Well, that is something that you are asserting. But what is your back-up that this is necessarily so? Is it possible for the universe to have existed for an infinite amount of time? If not, do please tell us why.

 

desertwolf9 wrote:
There HAS to be a prime mover, and that mover is god or anything analogous to such. Saying that there are no beginnings is ridiculous IMO, all one has to to do is follow them back.

 

OK, granting that the universe may have started a finite time in the past, then I would see that something had to have happened first. However, the problem here is that says nothing about the existence of any divine being. The first thing could be a vacuum fluctuation, the collision of two branes, a supercooled Higgs field collapsing or any of several other suggested explanations (or even one that nobody has thought up just yet but whatever on that).

 

I see no reason to add “god did it” to the general list. First, because it just gives one more explanation and second, because it doesn't really say anything about the matter. Even if “god did it” makes any sense, what was it that god did? Did god push the branes together? Did god kick the Higgs field out of an earlier unstable state? Really, if the big bang is right, the question of what went bang is fully separate from who lit the fuse. So that still does not get you any closer to god being real in any meaningful sense.

 

desertwolf9 wrote:
Some of you might say " but why assume that there must be a beginning when we have yet to encounter it?"

 

Because it's illogical - just because we haven't encountered it doesn't make it not so. You simply have to decide whether you want to rely on logic, or data.

 

Well, you are the one claiming that there must have been a beginning thing that happened. As the claimant, the responsibility falls to you to provide the details. Not that I expect that you can, after all, the scientific community has only offered a stack of possible suggestions on what those details might be. To date, they have been able to eliminate some possible sets of details but they have found others in the process.

 

As I said above, there may even be other ways of considering the origin of the universe that we just have not come across yet. Adding god to the list doesn't really explain anything. At least not like, oh say, the real correct answer would should we stick around long enough to figure out what that answer actually is.

 

desertwolf9 wrote:
Hence, because of the necessity of a prime mover, there must be a god.

 

Or perhaps there is not. The universe may have just arisen spontaneously from some earlier structure that underlies many other universes. However, while some in the physics community have entertained such ideas, it seems to me that they probably don't take us anywhere really. They do embed the universe in the earlier structure but unless that happens to be eternal, we just have to account for where that came from.

 

desertwolf9 wrote:
Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?

 

That sounds like just another restatement of Pascal's wager to me. Believe because it is the safe alternative. Sorry but that is just intellectual terrorism with about as much real force as being made to sit in the comfy chair until tea time.

 

desertwolf9 wrote:
Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thoughts? Sure, you are a theist and have tried the cosmological argument on us. You are certainly not the first to do so. Nor is the world in any danger of running out of theists in the foreseeable future. So you are also not likely to be the last to try this line of reasoning.

 

It never goes anywhere really. It is kind of tiring to have the same 6~8 lines of illogic tried on us over and over, each time presented as if it was a new line of thought that we have never seen before and therefore a killer argument that we cannot just step around or over at will.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The whole prime mover

The whole prime mover argument is retarded - and I don't mean "60 year old guy bagging groceries" retarded, I mean "shit in your pants and drool" retarded.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
It also occurs to me that

It also occurs to me that General Relativity pretty much wraps it up for an unmoving mover.  If god put the whole system into motion, then all things would be moving relative to god and god would be moving relative to all things.  Since GR is known correct to a  high degree of certainty, then the prime mover must be ruled out to the reciprocal of that degree of certainty.  QEDB

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:The whole

MattShizzle wrote:
The whole prime mover argument is retarded - and I don't mean "60 year old guy bagging groceries" retarded, I mean "shit in your pants and drool" retarded.
And Mattshizzle invents the "Argument from retardation" fallacy. Eye-wink

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Thoughts?

desertwolf9 wrote:

Thoughts?

One:

You're an idiot - because there are thousands or refutations of this available.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


desertwolf9
Theist
desertwolf9's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2008-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Ugh, most of you here are

Ugh, most of you here are not understanding what I am trying to say. I am not asking you to believe in god or saying that god "definitely exists". All I am trying to say is that my belief in god is based upon LOGIC. The data I've been presented logically should lead one to believe in an all powerful entity.

 

I'm saying that there can't be an infinite series of movers. It has to stop somewhere. But where?

The Universe - it is a non-sentient object.  Therefore, I find it illogical that it can be the end of the line. Other people are okay with the universe "just existing".

"God is the intelligence with the initiative and the power to create the universe".

You have to pick whichever end you want. The only reason we're filling in holes though, is because this is a hole that needs to be filled.

Now some of you in your responces have questions whether or not the conclusion I arrive at is logical or not. While that conclusion (that there must be a prime mover and that primve mover is an intelligent being) might be illogical as well, the process of arriving at that conclusion is not.

 

If the creator of the universe is going to have complete mastery over this reality and is powerful enough to create it, he better damn well be infinite, beyond and not part of the universe. I'd have no problem with assigning these qualities to the universe, but I can't, as the universe is not sentient - it's an unthinking, ordinary, object.

 

Now some of you responded whining that I am "falsely asserting" that there "must be a prime mover". Well then... what about the big bang? Explain to me how the universe transformed from whatever it was before the big bang to a giant explosion that created the universe?

Point is... there is plenty of evidence of a beginning as far as this universe is concerned, including stellar drift, the afterglow of radiant heat from the early stages of the universe and the presence of primordial deuterium that have been detected in the far reaches of the universe. Hence evidence pointing towards a prime mover.

The problem with "infinite regress" is that you can't explain the existence of the universe by saying that it always existed. That doesn't make any sense. Saying "I don't know" is also fine. But it's not illogical for me to take it all a step further by looking at the data which points to the existence of a prime mover.

Now some of you are saying that I am "asserting" too many things. Well the problem with that argument is, so are you and so are the scientists. Science itsself makes too many assertions.

For example" It's worth noting that the laws of physics and energy conservation basically didn't exist in their current form during the first few nanoseconds of the universe's creation or that they break down in a singularity according to modern physics. And maybe if you guys are going to keep bringing up the "god of the gaps" you should keep in mind that scientists don't know what happened 10^-43 seconds before the universe was created and are using this gap of knowledge to assert that there could be an infinite series of universes.

And many scientists assume that the energy for the big bang was built up from nothing, despite the fact that doing so would violate the law of entropy (having the universe become more ordered & organized with time).

Science makes assumptions all the time, and puts them forth as a fact that everybody has to accept, and I don't see you creating a fuss about that. Yet you seem comfortable denying theist people the ability to make educated assumptions about the universe's creation for themselves (calling them "irrational" and "illogical" ), which is not a whole lot to ask. That's what I like to call hypocrisy.

For all we know, if a god exists, the universe can just be an extension of himself. I'm simply saying that if the evidence points to a creator, then logically he should be endowed with whatever the fuck kind of powers he needs, hence his ability to not follow the laws of physics.

 

Now some other of you where whining about how I "assert" that the prime mover must be a sentient being (we all agree at this point that there must've been a prime mover, regardless of whether he's sentient or not, correct?).

My answer is that a non-sentient object can't be the instrument of its own creation - those objects are used for certain ends, and it takes an intelligence to "create/transform" something for that end.

 

HAH! take that ya'll! My money says you won't be able to refute all of that.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Now some

desertwolf9 wrote:

Now some other of you where whining about how I "assert" that the prime mover must be a sentient being (we all agree at this point that there must've been a prime mover, regardless of whether he's sentient or not, correct?).

My answer is that a non-sentient object can't be the instrument of its own creation - those objects are used for certain ends, and it takes an intelligence to "create/transform" something for that end.

You are right - NOTHING can be the "instrument of its own creation" - you do not show how sentience changes that. Prior to its creation, even a sentient entity doesn't exist, neither do any of its attributes, including its sentience. You are being totally ILLOGICAL.

There is one of those assertions, assumptions, whatever you want to call it, that you keep making without  justification.

Science makes assumptions, but does not put them forward as 'facts'. A 'fact' in a scientific context refers mainly to things like replicated experimental observations.

What you fail to understand is that your argument is full of gaping holes in LOGIC.

There are scientific explanations which show how the BIg Bang does not necessarily violate any fundamental Laws - you obviously have not actually read up on this subject, or if you have, you have not been able to understand it, apparently.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:I am not

Quote:
I'm saying that there can't be an infinite series of movers. It has to stop somewhere. But where?

It would benefit you greatly if you actually read and understood our responses. You've already understood that the mathematical concept of infinity, when applied to the real world, is just not very nice. However, where your inquiry stopped is the necessity to confront the realization that the existence of the universe implies at least three possible infinities: space, time, and cause. When you contend that it's impossible to have an infinite series of causes, you are, as a consequence, violating time. If there was a first cause, this cause would have had to exist for an infinity. This reaches the same philosophical problem as having an infinite series of cause and effect.  

Quote:
You have to pick whichever end you want. The only reason we're filling in holes though, is because this is a hole that needs to be filled.

Bingo! You've just defined religion perfectly. There is a gap in knowledge, and it needs to be filled. Thus, your belief system fills it.  

Quote:
Now some of you responded whining that I am "falsely asserting" that there "must be a prime mover". Well then... what about the big bang? Explain to me how the universe transformed from whatever it was before the big bang to a giant explosion that created the universe?

By studying the redshifts of galaxies, scientists have supposedly traced the movements of all celestial objects back to a single point. The Big Bang didn't create the universe, per se, it was simply the expansion of space from this original point. What happened before that? Nobody really knows. In fact, if any "scientist" professes to know, you better check their credentials, since they probably bought their degree from some Creationist bullshit source.    

Quote:
For all we know, if a god exists, the universe can just be an extension of himself. I'm simply saying that if the evidence points to a creator, then logically he should be endowed with whatever the fuck kind of powers he needs, hence his ability to not follow the laws of physics.

Well, duh! If you start with the presupposition that God exists, you can rationalize anything. 

Quote:
My answer is that a non-sentient object can't be the instrument of its own creation -

Are you implying what I think you're implying? Please explain how a sentient entity can create itself.  

Quote:
HAH! take that ya'll! My money says you won't be able to refute all of that.

You're not a very responsible gambler, are you?  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry, I wasn't sure; 1:

I'm sorry, I wasn't sure;
1: Something Must have been first
2: ?????????
3: GOD!
qualified as logic.

you wrote:
I'm saying that there can't be an infinite series of movers. It has to stop somewhere. But where?

Prove it.

again wrote:
The Universe - it is a non-sentient object. Therefore, I find it illogical that it can be the end of the line. Other people are okay with the universe "just existing".

Why? Namely, Why can't it have been the end of the line?

uh huh wrote:
While that conclusion (that there must be a prime mover and that primve mover is an intelligent being) might be illogical as well, the process of arriving at that conclusion is not.

Riiiiiiiiight. Essentially you are saying that, starting from your house, you can take the right path to get to New York, and yet arive in Sacremento. I'm going to have to ask you how a logical train of thought can lead to an illogical answer. Last time I checked, if you go through the derivation of an equation correctly, you will get the correct answer, it is only by making a mistake somewhere that you can arrive at a wrong answer. (or if the person writing the original problem and answer made a mistake, which I guess would be like you arriving at New York but finding the sign says Sacremento...)

desertwolf9 wrote:
Science makes assumptions all the time, and puts them forth as a fact that everybody has to accept

Really, Such as?

Now before you say that

You Again wrote:
you should keep in mind that scientists don't know what happened 10^-43 seconds before the universe was created and are using this gap of knowledge to assert that there could be an infinite series of universes
I would like to point out one very small but oh so very important detail; the word 'could'. Scientists are saying "we don't know what happened here, it could have been this, we're looking into it." They are not asserting any facts, and until you name some facts that scientists are asserting without evidence, we can add one more thing to the list of things you were wrong about.

assertion much wrote:
Now some other of you where whining about how I "assert" that the prime mover must be a sentient being (we all agree at this point that there must've been a prime mover, regardless of whether he's sentient or not, correct?).

My answer is that a non-sentient object can't be the instrument of its own creation - those objects are used for certain ends, and it takes an intelligence to "create/transform" something for that end.


First cause? Maybe. Once again, there only needs to be a first cuase when your thinking of time is linear. We don't know what the pre-Big Bang Universe was, it may not have had a sense of time anything like ours.
Also, why does suddenly having intelligence allow something to create something? From what the evidence shows it looks like the non-intelligent Earth gave rise to intelligent (mostly) species of animal life, including humans.

Now then;

Your main problem is that you are thinking of time as a linear flow from past to future. While this does work in our universe, or at least it seems to so far, we have no reason to suspect that time worked this way in the whatsit that was before the big bang. We also have no reason to assume that this time flow exists in whatever Multi-Verse we might find our universe to be a part of. Thus, while our Universe may indeed require a beginning, although you have yet to show this, the outside MultiVerse might not. Furthermore, as others have said, you have not truly shown why a non-sentient object cannot create something.

Its not that we don't understand your argument, its more like there isn't really an argument for us to understand.

And as for money, what are we supposed to refute? You haven't proven anything, you have just made a bunch of blind assertions.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Ugh, most

desertwolf9 wrote:

Ugh, most of you here are not understanding what I am trying to say. I am not asking you to believe in god or saying that god "definitely exists". All I am trying to say is that my belief in god is based upon LOGIC. The data I've been presented logically should lead one to believe in an all powerful entity.

Yes we do understand what you are saying. However it isn't logic, it is presupposition no matter how many times you try to tell yourself that.

Your argument fails because of the word 'must'. "Must have been a prime mover", "Must have a beginning", "Must be a god": You're throwing those around as 'necessary truths' despite the fact that every responder has given you alternative contingencies.

 

 

Quote:
I'm saying that there can't be an infinite series of movers. It has to stop somewhere. But where?

I don't propose to know. Remember this from the other thread? You're the one stopping at an allegedly infinite 'god(s)' that cannot be proven.

Quote:
The Universe - it is a non-sentient object.  Therefore, I find it illogical that it can be the end of the line. Other people are okay with the universe "just existing".

So it's easier for you to believe that a complex sentient 'being' came first???? With nothing creating it??? What part of that makes sense in your 'just existing' model?

Quote:
"God is the intelligence with the initiative and the power to create the universe".

No matter how many times you say it, someone will point out that you will need to "PROVE IT!"

If you want to be referred to as a 'blithering idiot' then simply spout the "Prove it NOT!" stock catchphrase of modern theism.

Quote:
You have to pick whichever end you want. The only reason we're filling in holes though, is because this is a hole that needs to be filled.

Why? I don't even see a hole. If you have filled this 'hole' already then why do you feel it necessary for us to validate it for you?

Quote:
Now some of you in your responces have questions whether or not the conclusion I arrive at is logical or not. While that conclusion (that there must be a prime mover and that primve mover is an intelligent being) might be illogical as well, the process of arriving at that conclusion is not.

And some of the responses had questions for you, which you have chosen to ignore by simply reiterating your OP.

 

Quote:
If the creator of the universe is going to have complete mastery over this reality and is powerful enough to create it, he better damn well be infinite, beyond and not part of the universe. I'd have no problem with assigning these qualities to the universe, but I can't, as the universe is not sentient - it's an unthinking, ordinary, object.

No part of it, but part of its 'creation'???

Once again, you presuppose a 'creator'.

 

Quote:
Now some of you responded whining that I am "falsely asserting" that there "must be a prime mover". Well then... what about the big bang? Explain to me how the universe transformed from whatever it was before the big bang to a giant explosion that created the universe?

And if we did that, would it kill this 'god' thing once and for all? Of course not. Thus the 'infinite regression' problem.

Quote:
Point is... there is plenty of evidence of a beginning as far as this universe is concerned, including stellar drift, the afterglow of radiant heat from the early stages of the universe and the presence of primordial deuterium that have been detected in the far reaches of the universe. Hence evidence pointing towards a prime mover.

WHAT???!!! How do you get that as evidence pointing toward a 'prime mover'???

'after glow of radiant heat'???? Do you mean the cosmic background radiation in the WMAP images?

'stellar drift'??? Do you mean physics?

'primordial deuterium'??? A phase after the big bang?

 

Quote:
The problem with "infinite regress" is that you can't explain the existence of the universe by saying that it always existed. That doesn't make any sense. Saying "I don't know" is also fine. But it's not illogical for me to take it all a step further by looking at the data which points to the existence of a prime mover.

Unfortunately, it is not only illogical; it is irrational.

Wanting something to be there underneath all of the turtles doesn't mean that there is.

Quote:
Now some of you are saying that I am "asserting" too many things. Well the problem with that argument is, so are you and so are the scientists. Science itsself makes too many assertions.

This is called  'tu quoque' fallacy and has no bearing on your argument or lack thereof.

Quote:
For example" It's worth noting that the laws of physics and energy conservation basically didn't exist in their current form during the first few nanoseconds of the universe's creation or that they break down in a singularity according to modern physics. And maybe if you guys are going to keep bringing up the "god of the gaps" you should keep in mind that scientists don't know what happened 10^-43 seconds before the universe was created and are using this gap of knowledge to assert that there could be an infinite series of universes.

No. That is called Planck time. That is the time needed to establish space which in itself establishes time. Space-time.

One Planck length is the distance-time that a photon travels in a vacuum.

Oh for fuck's sake I don't know why I'm taking the time(pun intended) if your hands are on your ears.

Google it or go back to second semester high school Physics class. Shit. Even plugging the numbers into google gives results that will explain it better than any of us.

Quote:
And many scientists assume that the energy for the big bang was built up from nothing, despite the fact that doing so would violate the law of entropy (having the universe become more ordered & organized with time).

Dammit. Thermodynamics = first semester. Systems, Systems, Systems. Open. closed. Open. Closed. Enthalpy. Entropy. Enthalpy. Entropy.

[Side note: Kids, stay in school and don't do drugs or you'll wind up as clueless as desertwolf.]

 

Quote:
Science makes assumptions all the time, and puts them forth as a fact that everybody has to accept, and I don't see you creating a fuss about that. Yet you seem comfortable denying theist people the ability to make educated assumptions about the universe's creation for themselves (calling them "irrational" and "illogical" ), which is not a whole lot to ask. That's what I like to call hypocrisy.

You're going for the most fallacies in a post aren't you?

'Straw man fallacy'. Your education continues

Science puts forth hypotheses offering testable criteria for everyone to try to verify.

I have not witnessed, in my entire life, a theist making an 'educated assumption'. I can only guess at what you mean by the phrase anyway. lol. (punny again)

 

Quote:
For all we know, if a god exists, the universe can just be an extension of himself. I'm simply saying that if the evidence points to a creator, then logically he should be endowed with whatever the fuck kind of powers he needs, hence his ability to not follow the laws of physics.

Disappointed again. You went from presupposing to assuming and not even in an educated manner.

Logically, if a god existed then he/she/it would be evident and the powers of said deity could be testable. No need for assumptions.

 

Quote:
Now some other of you where whining about how I "assert" that the prime mover must be a sentient being (we all agree at this point that there must've been a prime mover, regardless of whether he's sentient or not, correct?).

My answer is that a non-sentient object can't be the instrument of its own creation - those objects are used for certain ends, and it takes an intelligence to "create/transform" something for that end.

There you go with 'must've' again. We do not 'all agree' in a prime mover. Have you not read the responses?

It does not take an 'intelligence' to transform something to be usable.

 

Quote:
HAH! take that ya'll! My money says you won't be able to refute all of that.

I'm sure the RRS is grateful for your contribution of your money. You will find the 'Donate Now' button along the left hand side of the window for the main page.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Ugh, most

desertwolf9 wrote:

Ugh, most of you here are not understanding what I am trying to say. I am not asking you to believe in god or saying that god "definitely exists". All I am trying to say is that my belief in god is based upon LOGIC. The data I've been presented logically should lead one to believe in an all powerful entity.

Except that logic's not the kind of thing that's open to personal intuition. Either p->q or not. So, if you're claiming that logical application of the data compels you to believe in an all-powerful entity, then yes, you are a)asking everyone else to believe in god, and b)saying that god 'definitely exists'.

Quote:

I'm saying that there can't be an infinite series of movers. It has to stop somewhere. But where?

The Universe - it is a non-sentient object.  Therefore, I find it illogical that it can be the end of the line. Other people are okay with the universe "just existing".

"God is the intelligence with the initiative and the power to create the universe".

You have to pick whichever end you want. The only reason we're filling in holes though, is because this is a hole that needs to be filled.

Can there be an infinite series of moves?  Proceeding forward from any point, are there an infinite number of consequences? See, here's where you run into a problem, even if it doesn't become immediately apparent. If there can be an infinite progression from any definite point, then you still have an infinite series of movers. And if there cannot, then your 'god' is no longer infinite, nor all-powerful, because you have assigned God an endpoint and limitation.

The other problem you're running headlong into without realizing it is that you are attempting to argue against the idea that 'existence' can itself be infinite. The universe, you tell us, cannot regress infinitely because something must have brought that first iteration of existence into being. God runs into the same problem, and is in fact part and parcel of what you're arguing against.

Let's say God exists. Go on, say it. "God exists." Ok? Now, if God exists, and God regresses infinitely, then existence regresses infinitely, and you've been arguing against that.

Quote:

Now some of you in your responces have questions whether or not the conclusion I arrive at is logical or not. While that conclusion (that there must be a prime mover and that primve mover is an intelligent being) might be illogical as well, the process of arriving at that conclusion is not.

A logical process founded on logical premises cannot return an illogical conclusion. The very process of formulating the conclusion through logic means it is not illogical. If you come to a conclusion, through logic, that you find illogical, then you are tacitly acknowledging a fault in your logic.

Quote:

If the creator of the universe is going to have complete mastery over this reality and is powerful enough to create it, he better damn well be infinite, beyond and not part of the universe. I'd have no problem with assigning these qualities to the universe, but I can't, as the universe is not sentient - it's an unthinking, ordinary, object.

A)Why must the creator have 'complete mastery' over this reality? Are you incapable of setting events into motion that you cannot control? Why would any 'creator' not be capable of the same? Or by 'complete mastery', do you mean the ability to determine and dictate the precise initial conditions of existence, and not complete control over the entire state of existence at all points in its progression?

B)I would personally consider the universe to be a quite extraordinary object.

Quote:

Now some of you responded whining that I am "falsely asserting" that there "must be a prime mover". Well then... what about the big bang? Explain to me how the universe transformed from whatever it was before the big bang to a giant explosion that created the universe?

Well, if you'll supply an accurate description of the conditions which progressed into the big bang event, I'm sure some folks here would be happy to take a stab at it.

Quote:

Point is... there is plenty of evidence of a beginning as far as this universe is concerned, including stellar drift, the afterglow of radiant heat from the early stages of the universe and the presence of primordial deuterium that have been detected in the far reaches of the universe. Hence evidence pointing towards a prime mover.

No, the evidence simply points to a previous condition capable of giving rise to the present condition.

Quote:

The problem with "infinite regress" is that you can't explain the existence of the universe by saying that it always existed. That doesn't make any sense. Saying "I don't know" is also fine. But it's not illogical for me to take it all a step further by looking at the data which points to the existence of a prime mover.

But aren't you just sweeping the question under the rug with your answer? If 'God did it' is the explanation for the existence of the universe, then don't we need an explanation for the existence of God? Without answering the 'where did God come from?' question, we don't actually have a complete explanation for the existence of the universe, we only have an excuse. It's like asking where my machete came from (to pick out the first object that catches my attention as I look around): It came from my grandfather's house. Ok, great, that answers the question in an immediate, superficial sense, but if you're looking for actual, complete understanding, that tells you... nothing, really. It certainly doesn't tell you that it came from the U.S. Army, that it was issued for use in the South Pacific, or that it was made by the Sheffield Steel Company in 1943. And even those answers don't tell you where the iron for it was mined, etc, etc...

You say it's not illogical for you to say the data calls for the existence of a prime mover. Frankly, your 'data' calls for the existence of existence in some form, infinitely regressing either through a variety of states or as a stable, static state that inexplicably alters state in order to begin the progression of cause and effect that leads us to now. And calling it 'God' and claiming its self-aware doesn't change that. If God exists throughout an infinite regression of causes and effects, then either a)he's thinking, which is a constant pattern of changing states, or b)he's not, and then suddenly started thinking in order to decide to create existence, which makes no sense. If it's a, though, then you have to ask yourself: what's he thinking about? what caused that thought? And what caused the cause? And so on, and so on... and suddenly, you realize you never answered the question in the first place. Your 'prime mover' isn't, in fact, prime. Your 'first cause' is suddenly himself regressing into prior causes.

Quote:

Now some of you are saying that I am "asserting" too many things. Well the problem with that argument is, so are you and so are the scientists. Science itsself makes too many assertions.

For example" It's worth noting that the laws of physics and energy conservation basically didn't exist in their current form during the first few nanoseconds of the universe's creation or that they break down in a singularity according to modern physics. And maybe if you guys are going to keep bringing up the "god of the gaps" you should keep in mind that scientists don't know what happened 10^-43 seconds before the universe was created and are using this gap of knowledge to assert that there could be an infinite series of universes.

And many scientists assume that the energy for the big bang was built up from nothing, despite the fact that doing so would violate the law of entropy (having the universe become more ordered & organized with time).

Science makes assumptions all the time, and puts them forth as a fact that everybody has to accept, and I don't see you creating a fuss about that. Yet you seem comfortable denying theist people the ability to make educated assumptions about the universe's creation for themselves (calling them "irrational" and "illogical" ), which is not a whole lot to ask. That's what I like to call hypocrisy.

For all we know, if a god exists, the universe can just be an extension of himself. I'm simply saying that if the evidence points to a creator, then logically he should be endowed with whatever the fuck kind of powers he needs, hence his ability to not follow the laws of physics.

No. Science speculates. Science postulates, and then tests. Scientists operate under the presumption that a model that has not yet been disproven either can be trusted, or will be disproved by the results of trusting it. Science does not put forth facts, but conclusions and observations, which people often interpret to be facts based on the preponderance of the evidence.

As for denying theists the ability to make educated assumptions about the universe's creation... I would, rather, say that we feel they are making undereducated assumptions, and attempt to show them where those assumptions, and the previous assumptions that underlie them, are flawed.

Quote:

Now some other of you where whining about how I "assert" that the prime mover must be a sentient being (we all agree at this point that there must've been a prime mover, regardless of whether he's sentient or not, correct?).

My answer is that a non-sentient object can't be the instrument of its own creation - those objects are used for certain ends, and it takes an intelligence to "create/transform" something for that end.

Can you please demonstrate any reason to believe that a sentient being can be the instrument of its own creation? If not, you've just plopped yourself back into the 'still not the prime mover' scene.

Quote:

HAH! take that ya'll! My money says you won't be able to refute all of that.

How much did I win, Pat Sajak?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Ghost (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I believe that the

I believe that the cosmological argument for the existence of God stands the test of time. It is valid today, even in a world of quantum mechanics, biology, chemistry, mathematics etc. This is because NO scientist has ever been able to prove that something can give existence to itself. In fact, the idea is inconceivable and contradictory: Wouldn't you have to pre-exist in some form in order to give existence to yourself?

1.) Joe brought himself into existence (A) AP

2.) If Joe brought himself into existence, then Joe existed prior to bringing himself into existence (B). A-->B

3.) If Joe brought himself into existence, then Joe didn't exist prior to bringing himself into existence (~B). A--->~B

4.) Joe existed prior to bringing himself into existence. 1,2; MP

5.) Joe didn't exist prior to bringing himself into existence. 1,3: MP

6.) Joe existed and didn't exist prior to bringing himself into existence (B & ~B). 4,5; Conj

NOT WITHIN SCOPE OF AP: 7.) Joe did not bring himself into existence. ~A

==============

Do you disagree with any of the above premises? Now you could replace "Joe" with any existing thing ( including "God" ) and you would come to the same conclusion.  No scientist has ever been able to show that something could give existence to itself.

Now given the truth of that, you have two choices:

(1) There is an infinite regress of finite things being brought into existence by something other than them.

OR

(2) There is at least one infinite being from which the chain of finite things begins.

Now it is your turn. Here is your task:

Tell me if you agree or disagree with my conclusion that nothing can give existence to itself. If you disagree, then tell me which premises I have wrong or why the form of my argument is invalid.

If you agree with my conclusion that nothing can give existence to itself, then tell me why the choice of an infinite regress is better.

I can tell you why I don't think that it is better:  If that was true, then you wouldn't exist.  If in fact there was an infinite regress of finite things being brought into existence, then you would have to agree that your existence could be attributed to an infinite chain of cause and effect that preceded you.  But how could you possibly be existing right now if the chain of cause/effect that preceded you was infinite? 

Think of it this way:  If I told you that I would give you a cookie after I stomped my foot on the ground an infinite amount of times, would you ever end up getting the cookie?  No.  Infinitude never has an ending and therefore nothing could theoretically come AFTER infinity. 

So from your existence, you could infer that the chain of causation that preceded you was finite.  It had a beginning.  And it had to have a beginning to a being that is itself uncaused. 

Now if someone chooses to take up my challenge by arguing that an infinite being is impossible, just keep in mind that the following justifications for your belief are lame:  (1) We can't observe it, (2) We can't imagine it, (3) We can't prove it scientifically, etc. etc. etc.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Obviously, we all agree that

Obviously, we all agree that nothing can be the "instrument of its own creation". It is a nosnsensical concept.

It is you, Ghost, who want to make an exception to this, in the case of "God".

Whatever problems there are with an infinite series of 'cause-effect", the idea of a God does nothing to actually address this, as has been clearly pointed out in an excellent response by BMcD. Instead of disposing of the infinite-regress 'problem', you have added something with truly problematic and incomprehensible 'infinite' attrinbutes, the very opposite of an explanation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ghost (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Obviously,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Obviously, we all agree that nothing can be the "instrument of its own creation". It is a nosnsensical concept.

It is you, Ghost, who want to make an exception to this, in the case of "God".

God is NOT an exception to this.

I never proposed that God could bring himself into existence.  That would mean that there was a point in time when God didn't exist, and that's not what I'm trying to put forth.

My premise is that God never did NOT EXIST.  Theoretically, his existence is NOT contingent. 

IF God did not pre-exist, then God could not have brought himself into existence.  So there is no exception to that rule, just as there is no exception to anything involving the principle of contradiction.

Atheists make the mistake of assuming that theists are proposing that God can do anything and that is NOT the case.  God cannot supersede the realm of possibility in general.  If it's not possible to do, then not even God can do it. 

Quote:
Whatever problems there are with an infinite series of 'cause-effect", the idea of a God does nothing to actually address this, as has been clearly pointed out in an excellent response by BMcD. Instead of disposing of the infinite-regress 'problem', you have added something with truly problematic and incomprehensible 'infinite' attrinbutes, the very opposite of an explanation.

I've given a thorough explanation of why the infinite regress is not possible and you have yet to do the same re: an infinite being.  WHY is an infinite being impossible?   What contradictions would we be presupposing if we agreed that an infinite being exists?

Give me several premises and a conclusion showing why the assumption of an infinite being leads to a contradiction.

 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Ghost wrote:I never proposed

Ghost wrote:

I never proposed that God could bring himself into existence.  That would mean that there was a point in time when God didn't exist, and that's not what I'm trying to put forth.

My premise is that God never did NOT EXIST.  Theoretically, his existence is NOT contingent. 

IF God did not pre-exist, then God could not have brought himself into existence.  So there is no exception to that rule, just as there is no exception to anything involving the principle of contradiction.

Atheists make the mistake of assuming that theists are proposing that God can do anything and that is NOT the case.  God cannot supersede the realm of possibility in general.  If it's not possible to do, then not even God can do it.

Except that this doesn't actually provide the answer. As above, either a)God exists in a changing state, or b)God exists in a changeless state.

We know b) is impossible. If God exists, and God created all of existence, then that indicates a decision to create, which is a change in state. Without change, the decision cannot be made. So we can throw out b).

On the other hand, a) presents us with a problem. Because if God exists in a changing state, then something must be causing the changes, which means that God is not the ultimate cause. Oops. So no, I'm not assuming that you're proposing that God can do anything. I'm assuming that you're proposing  a state change can occur without a cause... because that's what you're saying by asserting that once you hit God, you immediately have no additional causes in the equation.

Quote:

I've given a thorough explanation of why the infinite regress is not possible and you have yet to do the same re: an infinite being.  WHY is an infinite being impossible?   What contradictions would we be presupposing if we agreed that an infinite being exists?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this is your explanation (correct me if I'm wrong):

Quote:

I can tell you why I don't think that it is better:  If that was true, then you wouldn't exist.  If in fact there was an infinite regress of finite things being brought into existence, then you would have to agree that your existence could be attributed to an infinite chain of cause and effect that preceded you.  But how could you possibly be existing right now if the chain of cause/effect that preceded you was infinite?

Unfortunately, it's flawed. Allow me to illustrate: Can you count? The set of integers is infinite, in both positive and negative directions. And yet, you have no difficulty choosing a point to step into the set and moving a finite distance through it before stepping out again. Any infinite set can have a finite subset defined within it. Minus-infinity to infinity is an infinite set. -2 to +3 is not. Thus, while tracing our way back to an ultimate root cause may prove impossible, the finite set of cause-and-effect stemming from say, the big bang, and progressing until now... that fits within the infinite set with no difficulty.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Ghost (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Except that this

BMcD wrote:

Except that this doesn't actually provide the answer. As above, either a)God exists in a changing state, or b)God exists in a changeless state.

We know b) is impossible. If God exists, and God created all of existence, then that indicates a decision to create, which is a change in state. Without change, the decision cannot be made. So we can throw out b).

On the other hand, a) presents us with a problem. Because if God exists in a changing state, then something must be causing the changes, which means that God is not the ultimate cause. Oops. So no, I'm not assuming that you're proposing that God can do anything. I'm assuming that you're proposing  a state change can occur without a cause... because that's what you're saying by asserting that once you hit God, you immediately have no additional causes in the equation.

There are a few ways to respond to your rebuttal.

(1) You seem to be assuming that a change in state has to be attributed to an external cause.  But I would disagree.  God making a decision is something that would be attributed to his own free will, which is by definition, free.  So yes, there's a "cause" per se, but something like that wouldn't contradict the concept of God.  When you act in accordance with your own free will, you are not deferring to something greater than yourself.  Its ultimate basis is on you.   In fact, you ARE your will.

(2) By talking about things like change in relation to God, you are making the assumption that God exists in time.  You are forgetting that time is something we learn about a posteriori from the universe and therefore we cannot assume that time exists outside of the universe.  And therefore, if there is a creator of the universe, then we cannot assume that this creator exists in time or that time even exists independently of our perception.

One story goes that a student asked St. Augustine, "What was God doing before he created the universe?"  Augustine's answer was, "Creating a Hell for people who ask those kinds of questions."

Quote:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this is your explanation (correct me if I'm wrong):

That's my explanation for why an infinite regress is impossible.

Quote:
Unfortunately, it's flawed. Allow me to illustrate: Can you count? The set of integers is infinite, in both positive and negative directions. And yet, you have no difficulty choosing a point to step into the set and moving a finite distance through it before stepping out again.

Any infinite set can have a finite subset defined within it. Minus-infinity to infinity is an infinite set. -2 to +3 is not. Thus, while tracing our way back to an ultimate root cause may prove impossible, the finite set of cause-and-effect stemming from say, the big bang, and progressing until now... that fits within the infinite set with no difficulty.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that even though 1 through 10, for example, exist within an infinite set of numbers... we can still arrive at a number even though there is an infinite regress. 

But I don't think it is analogous to what I'm saying.  Counting from 1 to 10 is not an example of infinitude.  Yes, there is an infinite set of numbers prior to the 1, but in your example, I have not counted them.  I've only counted from 1 to 10.  Thus, I would have not arrived at the 1 or any number thereafter if I decided one day that I was going to infinitely count every number before the 1.  To what degree do numbers exist anyway?  They certainly do not exist in the same way that sentient beings exist.

I wouldn't say that evolution or the Big Bang occurs within an infinite chain of events.  I would say that the only intelligible position is to say that there was something that's infinite.  You don't even have to call it "God".  Call it whatever you want.  But something has to be infinite.

 


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Ghost wrote:I believe that

Ghost wrote:

I believe that the cosmological argument for the existence of God stands the test of time. It is valid today, even in a world of quantum mechanics, biology, chemistry, mathematics etc. This is because NO scientist has ever been able to prove that something can give existence to itself. In fact, the idea is inconceivable and contradictory: Wouldn't you have to pre-exist in some form in order to give existence to yourself?

1.) Joe brought himself into existence (A) AP

2.) If Joe brought himself into existence, then Joe existed prior to bringing himself into existence (B). A-->B

3.) If Joe brought himself into existence, then Joe didn't exist prior to bringing himself into existence (~B). A--->~B

4.) Joe existed prior to bringing himself into existence. 1,2; MP

5.) Joe didn't exist prior to bringing himself into existence. 1,3: MP

6.) Joe existed and didn't exist prior to bringing himself into existence (B & ~B). 4,5; Conj

NOT WITHIN SCOPE OF AP: 7.) Joe did not bring himself into existence. ~A

==============

Do you disagree with any of the above premises? Now you could replace "Joe" with any existing thing ( including "God" ) and you would come to the same conclusion.  No scientist has ever been able to show that something could give existence to itself.

Given that time is linear and flows unfailing from past to present then you argument is valid.  If this were not the case I’m not sure of number 3.  I accept that time is linear and flows unfailing from past to present so I will move on. 

Ghost wrote:


Now given the truth of that, you have two choices:

(1) There is an infinite regress of finite things being brought into existence by something other than them.

OR

(2) There is at least one infinite being from which the chain of finite things begins.

Now it is your turn. Here is your task:

Tell me if you agree or disagree with my conclusion that nothing can give existence to itself. If you disagree, then tell me which premises I have wrong or why the form of my argument is invalid.

If you agree with my conclusion that nothing can give existence to itself, then tell me why the choice of an infinite regress is better.

You lost me at the point were you say “Now given the truth of that, you have two choices.”  I would argue that there are an almost infinite number of choices.  I will explain my reasoning starting with your fist choice.


“(1) there is an infinite regress of finite things being brought into existence by something other than them.”


You say that things are being brought into existence by something other than themselves.  I would argue that nothing is being brought into existence but that things which existed already are merely changing form.  For instance if I made a snowman I didn’t create the snow he was made out of, I simply rearranged it.  According to physics neither mass nor energy are ever created or destroyed, only the form changes.    A possibility that you ignore is that some form of the universe has always existed even if the form that it takes has continuously changed.
The Next choices you give is shown as a single option when in reality it encompasses as many options as you can imagine, and probably ones you can not imagin as well.


“(2) There is at least one infinite being from which the chain of finite things begins.”

So what I think you are saying is that instead of the universe always existing in some form or another some kind of infinite being has always existed.  This being created the universe that we know according to some conscious reason we may or may not be able to understand.  This is not a single option.  This being could be anything you could imagine, or things beyond the imagination.  This option certainly doesn’t prove any god I have ever heard about, according to this perhaps the immortal created the universe for reasons completely unrelated to humans beings.  We could just be a side effect.

    
Another option you didn’t even mention is that perhaps there is some kind of permanent none sentient process or series of processes that govern the creation and destruction of various finite existences.  

Ghost wrote:

I can tell you why I don't think that it is better:  If that was true, then you wouldn't exist.  If in fact there was an infinite regress of finite things being brought into existence, then you would have to agree that your existence could be attributed to an infinite chain of cause and effect that preceded you.  But how could you possibly be existing right now if the chain of cause/effect that preceded you was infinite? 

Think of it this way:  If I told you that I would give you a cookie after I stomped my foot on the ground an infinite amount of times, would you ever end up getting the cookie?  No.  Infinitude never has an ending and therefore nothing could theoretically come AFTER infinity. 

This argument is poor indeed.  Why would our existence come after a proceeding infinity?  Infinity never ends that is why they call it infinity.  To use your analogy we are not the person waiting for the stomping foot to stop so that we can get our cookie.  We are just one more Stomp of the foot in an infinity series of other stomps.   If your assertion was correct then the universe would be over.  Since the universe is obviously still here, you are not correct. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Why don't you register?

Why don't you register? Nobody cares what you say if you don't bother even to register so your bullshit at least shows up right away. If you can't even bother with that fuck you you stupid cocksucker.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Do you mean me?

MattShizzle wrote:

Why don't you register? Nobody cares what you say if you don't bother even to register so your bullshit at least shows up right away. If you can't even bother with that fuck you you stupid cocksucker.

Do you mean me?  I thought I was registered, or is there more to the process?


Ghost (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You say that things

Quote:

You say that things are being brought into existence by something other than themselves.  I would argue that nothing is being brought into existence but that things which existed already are merely changing form.

It sounds like you are espousing the position that the existence of particular things is illusory and that there is only one singular entity that constantly changes.

Okay, fine.  But then you have some explaining to do:

You acknowledge that there is change.  But in order for change to be possible, you must have something static which survives the change.  For example, if an apple turns from green to red, you do not recognize it as a change unless the other parts of the apple remain in tact throughout the change.  If the other parts of the apple do not remain in tact, then we don't say that the apple has changed, we say that it has been destroyed and no longer exists.

So what is this static entity that underlies all of this change that we experience?  You say that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but can you account for this static entity other than saying that it is just matter/energy

And would it then be possible for us to break down every single material thing in this world and come to some common element?

And does this world that you are speaking of randomly change or does the change have to be attributed to something prior?  Does the rule of cause/effect apply?  You say that FORMS constantly change, well can these forms give such changes to themselves?  It seems like you really can't avoid the problem of the infinite regress, even if you change the terminology.


Quote:
So what I think you are saying is that instead of the universe always existing in some form or another some kind of infinite being has always existed.

I've said explicitly that SOMETHING has to be infinite, and you apparently believe that it is some element within the universe.  The universe doesn't appear to be an entity in itself as much as it is the sum of a lot of different entities.  But you seem to be saying that there is only one thing undergoing many different changes.

So yes, you are stuck within the scope of my two options.  Either there is an infinite being to which the chain begins or there is an infinite regress. 

Quote:
This option certainly doesn’t prove any god I have ever heard about, according to this perhaps the immortal created the universe for reasons completely unrelated to humans beings.  We could just be a side effect.

I believe claims like that are faith based.  I don't believe we can prove that God is a nice guy or that everything in the bible is true.  That's what we have to take on faith.

Quote:
This argument is poor indeed.  Why would our existence come after a proceeding infinity?  Infinity never ends that is why they call it infinity.  To use your analogy we are not the person waiting for the stomping foot to stop so that we can get our cookie.  We are just one more Stomp of the foot in an infinity series of other stomps.   If your assertion was correct then the universe would be over.  Since the universe is obviously still here, you are not correct. 

My example with the foot stomping was just to give you an idea of what I was arguing but it is in no way analogous.  In fact, the foot stomping isn't really infinite because it had a beginning.  True infinity does not have a beginning.  If my coming to be was attributed to an infinite series of cause/effect, then you would never get to my coming to be. 

So yes, I'm going to say that my argument was sound.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:This argument

RatDog wrote:

This argument is poor indeed.  Why would our existence come after a proceeding infinity?  Infinity never ends that is why they call it infinity.  To use your analogy we are not the person waiting for the stomping foot to stop so that we can get our cookie.  We are just one more Stomp of the foot in an infinity series of other stomps.   If your assertion was correct then the universe would be over.  Since the universe is obviously still here, you are not correct. 


Sorry, the last part this comment is circler reasoning. I can not use the existence of the universe as proof that my explanation for the existence of the universe is correct.  The rest of the argument is still good though.
 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I was talking to that

I was talking to that "ghost" fucktard.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ghost wrote:You acknowledge

Ghost wrote:
You acknowledge that there is change.  But in order for change to be possible, you must have something static which survives the change.  For example, if an apple turns from green to red, you do not recognize it as a change unless the other parts of the apple remain in tact throughout the change.  If the other parts of the apple do not remain in tact, then we don't say that the apple has changed, we say that it has been destroyed and no longer exists.

So what is this static entity that underlies all of this change that we experience?  You say that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but can you account for this static entity other than saying that it is just matter/energy?

 

The fact that some characteristics stay constant during change doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that something is eternally constant. We can use your analogy for this; the apple changes from green to red, but retains its shape. Does this mean that the shape could never change? If there is a trait of the object that can never change, what is it? 

Also, why must we account for static conditions in a way other than stating that matter and energy are constant? Seems like you're just trying to avoid the disastrous effect that response would have on your argument.

Quote:
I've said explicitly that SOMETHING has to be infinite, and you apparently believe that it is some element within the universe....Either there is an infinite being to which the chain begins or there is an infinite regress.

It wouldn't be some element IN the universe, it would probably be a dimension applied to it. 

Thus, as a start, I will add to your false dichotomy, infinite time and infinite beings. 

Quote:
True infinity does not have a beginning.  If my coming to be was attributed to an infinite series of cause/effect, then you would never get to my coming to be. 

So yes, I'm going to say that my argument was sound.

Exactly! Thus, wouldn't the same philosophical problems apply to the infinite being. If the intelligent being was infinite, how did it have a beginning? How did it arrive at the action of creating our universe? Etc.

  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Ghost wrote:Quote:You say

Ghost wrote:

Quote:

You say that things are being brought into existence by something other than themselves.  I would argue that nothing is being brought into existence but that things which existed already are merely changing form.

It sounds like you are espousing the position that the existence of particular things is illusory and that there is only one singular entity that constantly changes.
Okay, fine.  But then you have some explaining to do:
You acknowledge that there is change.  But in order for change to be possible, you must have something static which survives the change.  For example, if an apple turns from green to red, you do not recognize it as a change unless the other parts of the apple remain in tact throughout the change.  If the other parts of the apple do not remain in tact, then we don't say that the apple has changed, we say that it has been destroyed and no longer exists.
So what is this static entity that underlies all of this change that we experience?  You say that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but can you account for this static entity other than saying that it is just matter/energy?

I think I need you to define what you mean by the word being.  For now I will assume you mean some sort of conscious entity.

In regards to your comments, first I did not say that matter/energy stays the same, what I said was mass/energy stay the same.  There is no law of conservation of matter, only mass.  Second I do not need to account for this static entity other than to define it as mass/energy anymore than you have to account for the exact composition of a creature you believe created the universe.   All this part of my argument was my trying to do was show that there are many if not infinite possible explanations which do not require a conscious entity, just as there are many if not infinite that do.  There are many things about the universe that are unknown, that doesn’t mean you can assume that they were done by a conscious entity. 
Quote:

I wouldn't say that evolution or the Big Bang occurs within an infinite chain of events.  I would say that the only intelligible position is to say that there was something that's infinite.  You don't even have to call it "God".  Call it whatever you want.  But something has to be infinite.

Your main argument seems to be that something has to have existed for eternity remaining unchanged.  I’m not sure if that’s true or not but for the sake of this discussion I’m assuming it is.  
Quote:

Another option you didn’t even mention is that perhaps there is some kind of permanent none sentient process or series of processes that govern the creation and destruction of various finite existences.

You completely ignored this part.  A “permanent none sentient process or series of processes” would seem to meet your qualifications of what you are arguing for.

Quote:

And would it then be possible for us to break down every single material thing in this world and come to some common element?

It’s is not necessary to have a common element mass and energy can exist in different forms as long as the sum of these forms remains constant the law of conservation of mass and energy is unbroken.   
Quote:

And does this world that you are speaking of randomly change or does the change have to be attributed to something prior?  Does the rule of cause/effect apply?  You say that FORMS constantly change, well can these forms give such changes to themselves?  It seems like you really can't avoid the problem of the infinite regress, even if you change the terminology.

Obviously the world doesn’t randomly change.  Thing change according to some set of rules.  These rules that govern the universe seem not to be subject to cause and effect.  Exactly what determines these rules is currently unknown, but they seem to be independent of the things they govern.  I do not see how an unchanging set of rules are subject to infinite regress as you have defined it.
Quote:

Quote:
So what I think you are saying is that instead of the universe always existing in some form or another some kind of infinite being has always existed.

I've said explicitly that SOMETHING has to be infinite, and you apparently believe that it is some element within the universe.

Yes I do.
Quote:

The universe doesn't appear to be an entity in itself as much as it is the sum of a lot of different entities.

Again I’m not talking about the universe what I’m talking about are the laws of physics.  I’m saying that there are some unchanging principles or principle that governs the universe and that a conscious entity is not required.
Quote:

But you seem to be saying that there is only one thing undergoing many different changes.

No, I’m saying there are one or more unchanging things that govern other things that change.  Things in this universe change, something has to govern those changes or life would be chaos.  If you believe in god you probably believe god governs these changes, if you don’t believe in god you probably believe that this is done by the laws of physics.   
Quote:

So yes, you are stuck within the scope of my two options.  Either there is an infinite being to which the chain begins or there is an infinite regress.

I think you are ignoring multiple possible alternatives to your two options.
Quote:

Quote:
This option certainly doesn’t prove any god I have ever heard about, according to this perhaps the immortal created the universe for reasons completely unrelated to humans beings.  We could just be a side effect.

I believe claims like that are faith based.  I don't believe we can prove that God is a nice guy or that everything in the bible is true.  That's what we have to take on faith.

My point wasn’t whether or not god is a nice guy.  My point is that you should not define all the possibilities of the universe into two options.  As for God there are so many ways word is defined it’s ridicules.  I think the word should be broken down into multiple words defining exactly what is meant by it.  For instance God A could be Deist God.  God B could be the Christian god.  God C could be the Muslim god. Maybe God B1 could be the catholic versions of the Christian god, you get the idea.  That way it would be much less confusing understanding what people are trying to say when they use the term.
Quote:

Quote:
This argument is poor indeed.  Why would our existence come after a proceeding infinity?  Infinity never ends that is why they call it infinity.  To use your analogy we are not the person waiting for the stomping foot to stop so that we can get our cookie.  We are just one more Stomp of the foot in an infinity series of other stomps.   If your assertion was correct then the universe would be over.  Since the universe is obviously still here, you are not correct.

My example with the foot stomping was just to give you an idea of what I was arguing but it is in no way analogous.  In fact, the foot stomping isn't really infinite because it had a beginning.  True infinity does not have a beginning.  If my coming to be was attributed to an infinite series of cause/effect, then you would never get to my coming to be.
So yes, I'm going to say that my argument was sound.

Let’s say the foot stomping has no Beginning, or ending, that it truly is infinite.  You’re saying that no individual stomp of the foot can happen because before it did and infinite amounts of stomps would have to happen beforehand.  If what you’re saying is the case an infinite foot stomping could not exist, because any individual stomp could never have happened.  If what you are saying is true than an infinite God can not exist. To exist in any time he would have had to existed an infinite period of time before that.  Because and infinite period of time can not pass, at no point in time can god exist.  If what you are saying is true there can not be an infinite god.

 


Ghost (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:The fact

butterbattle wrote:

The fact that some characteristics stay constant during change doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that something is eternally constant.

Yes it does.  You clearly have no understanding of change and what it entails.

Quote:
Exactly! Thus, wouldn't the same philosophical problems apply to the infinite being. If the intelligent being was infinite, how did it have a beginning? How did it arrive at the action of creating our universe? Etc.

Okay, you just don't get it and you clearly didn't read through the rest of the thread.  I address this.

Stay out of the argument.  You are wasting your time and have no business discussing philosophy.


Ghost (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote: I think I

RatDog wrote:

 

I think I need you to define what you mean by the word being.  For now I will assume you mean some sort of conscious entity.

A being is anything that exists.  Inanimate objects are beings just as much as humans are.  If you couldn't wrap your head around something as simple as that, then you are not qualified to be in this discussion.

Quote:
Second I do not need to account for this static entity other than to define it as mass/energy anymore than you have to account for the exact composition of a creature you believe created the universe.

Oh yes you do and here's why:  An infinite being outside the universe cannot be accounted for in positive scientific terms.  You even stated that you believe this infinite entity is WITHIN the universe so therefore you will have to speak of it spatially and/or temporally and in terms that can be understood within the context of a lab.

You put that burden on yourself the minute you said that this entity existed within the universe.  Now you want to escape it.

Quote:
All this part of my argument was my trying to do was show that there are many if not infinite possible explanations which do not require a conscious entity, just as there are many if not infinite that do.

Once again, you didn't even realize the meaning of "being" and that opened up a can of worms for you.  You continue to bound up the word "being" with a conscious entity.

This is why scientists should not be allowed to leave the lab.  Stick to your field of study because you have no business making claims about God.

Quote:
Your main argument seems to be that something has to have existed for eternity remaining unchanged.

I'm saying that if you are proposing that there is an infinite entity within the universe, then this entity has to be static or else it wouldn't survive the constant change taking place.

Quote:
You completely ignored this part.  A “permanent none sentient process or series of processes” would seem to meet your qualifications of what you are arguing for.


Because I have no clue what you mean.  What is a "none sentient process"?  I think I've already precluded the possibility of an infinite regress.

Quote:
Let’s say the foot stomping has no Beginning, or ending, that it truly is infinite.  You’re saying that no individual stomp of the foot can happen because before it did and infinite amounts of stomps would have to happen beforehand.  If what you’re saying is the case an infinite foot stomping could not exist, because any individual stomp could never have happened.  If what you are saying is true than an infinite God can not exist. To exist in any time he would have had to existed an infinite period of time before that.  Because and infinite period of time can not pass, at no point in time can god exist.  If what you are saying is true there can not be an infinite god.

That argument is flawed in so many ways.  First of all, you are comparing the existence of a thing to the progression of a sequence of events, like they are the same thing and they are not.  Second of all, you are assuming that God exists in a temporal setting and he doesn't.  Once again, you presupposed that by "being", I was referring to some intelligent living thing and that has thrown a monkey wrench on your entire rebuttal, so much that it is not even worth responding to.  When every single paragraph you write is based on a false assumption, there is just not enough time to refute.

I think if students of science really want to be qualified to make claims about God, they should study philosophy along with science.  Otherwise, you really have no idea what you are talking about.  I can't argue with you because you'll misunderstand the most basic of terms and your preconceived biases will just come through on even the most rudimentary things.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A few observations.An

A few observations.

An infinite sequence can have a finite beginning, eg at 10pm today, stretching without limit into the future, or an infinite past, which ends at a specific time, OR may extend infinitely into the past and the future.

Material objects are not absolutely separate entities, just collections of matter which maintain some minimum level of identifiably integrity. In fact, many such identifiable objects, such as living organisms, are more or less continually exchanging part of the matter within or on their physical boundaries with the rest of the world, so it is really only the pattern, the structure, not the physical substance, which has long term persistence.

They only exist as a truly discrete 'entity' in the simplified model of reality we maintain in our mind.

The Universe is a term encompassing all that we could in principle observe - some parts are beyond our 'event horizon', with the separation between us and those parts increasing faster than the speed of light, although we may infer their existence from indirect observations. It is the collection of all known matter and energy.

Any problems with ideas from Philosophy which don't accomodate these descriptions just demonstrates that that  particular Philosophical speculation is in error. This is not surprising since most of the ideas from older philosophy have not been adjusted to incorporate the actual insights into reality gained through scientific enquiry, ie, ideas which can be veriried in some manner, whether by repeated independent observation, explicit experimental test where possible, or by predictive tests otherwise, where we make an extrapolation based on the current theory 'explaining' some phenomenon, then make further observations/test to see if the prediction holds up.

Any idea which cannot be checked in some such manner, really has to be regarded as speculative.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Ghost wrote:RatDog wrote: I

Ghost wrote:

RatDog wrote:

 

I think I need you to define what you mean by the word being.  For now I will assume you mean some sort of conscious entity.

A being is anything that exists.  Inanimate objects are beings just as much as humans are.  If you couldn't wrap your head around something as simple as that, then you are not qualified to be in this discussion.

At least I can us a dictionary.  There are multiple definitions for this word one of which is God.  You should have stated clearly which definition you were using from the beginning.

Quote:


Being
noun


1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).


2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.

3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.

4. something that exists: inanimate beings.

5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.

6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine

7. (initial capital letter ) GOD.


8.  Philosophy.

    a.  that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
    b.  absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential     characteristic; essence.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/being
    

Quote:

Quote:


Second I do not need to account for this static entity other than to define it as mass/energy anymore than you have to account for the exact composition of a creature you believe created the universe.


Oh yes you do and here's why:  An infinite being outside the universe cannot be accounted for in positive scientific terms.  You even stated that you believe this infinite entity is WITHIN the universe so therefore you will have to speak of it spatially and/or temporally and in terms that can be understood within the context of a lab.


You put that burden on yourself the minute you said that this entity existed within the universe.  Now you want to escape it.


So I need to prove the law of conservation of  mass and energy in scientific terms.  I think a number of people already done so but to be sure we should do a test.  Put all of you money in a completely sealed container.  Weigh that container.  Now burn all of your money and weigh the container again. I think you’ll find even though the form of you money has changed the mass of the system remains the same. 

Quote:


Once again, you didn't even realize the meaning of "being" and that opened up a can of worms for you.  You continue to bound up the word "being" with a conscious entity.



I think it’s understandable that I assumed you were using the word “being” to describe God given the nature of your posts.

Quote:


This is why scientists should not be allowed to leave the lab.  Stick to your field of study because you have no business making claims about God.



You’re making a lot of assumptions because I know something you can find in a high school text book.

Quote:


I'm saying that if you are proposing that there is an infinite entity within the universe, then this entity has to be static or else it wouldn't survive the constant change taking place.



The laws of physics are the static entity which survives constant change.  I’ve met you’re requirements so what is the problem here.

Quote:

That argument is flawed in so many ways.  First of all, you are comparing the existence of a thing to the progression of a sequence of events, like they are the same thing and they are not.  Second of all, you are assuming that God exists in a temporal setting and he doesn't. 





Within the context of my example there is a rule “foot stomping has no Beginning, or ending, that it truly is infinite.”  By your definition a rule exists and therefore is a being.  It is unchanging therefore it is static.  If Infinite regression disproves a static being which is a rule then why doesn’t it disprove static being which is a God? 

By the way is the name Ghost based of the John Ringo book?
 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:The fact

butterbattle wrote:
The fact that some characteristics stay constant during change doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that something is eternally constant.

Ghost wrote:
Yes it does.  You clearly have no understanding of change and what it entails.

I actually agree that there are probably some constants within the universe. However, your logic here is simply a non sequitur. You're argument went:

- Something always stays constant during change.

- If nothing stayed the same, we would simply perceive it to be destroyed or no longer existing.

- Thus, something is always constant. 

However, as in the analogy with the apple, couldn't it be different characteristic changing every time?  

Quote:
Stay out of the argument.  You are wasting your time and have no business discussing philosophy.

Oh, fudge monkeys, I feel so intimidated!  The guy that can't grasp the logic of basic high school algebra is displaying his superiority over me.  

 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
desertwolf9 wrote:Take a

desertwolf9 wrote:

Take a look at the universe. It's a series of cause & effect reactions. However, there can't be an infinite series of causers. That is impossible. There HAS to be a prime mover, and that mover is god or anything analogous to such. Saying that there are no beginnings is ridiculous IMO, all one has to to do is follow them back.

 

Some of you might say " but why assume that there must be a beginning when we have yet to encounter it?"

 

Because it's illogical - just because we haven't encountered it doesn't make it not so. You simply have to decide whether you want to rely on logic, or data.

 

Hence, because of the necessity of a prime mover, there must be a god. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?

 

Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.

 

Thoughts?

 

A HA I love it.

You see the concept of a loving god and a eternal + prime mover  is impossible and disproves your god !

 

Our existence is contradictory to a god existing or creating the universe. It makes absolutely no sense and is illogical.

1)      god existed for ever.

2)      God did have no problem existing for a infinity without us.

3)      God is perfect/coherent/rational (Axiomatic to believe or accept god)

4)      God did have no problem with us not existing because he would create us/universe faster.

5)      God decides to create the universe , and this contradicts 1 , 2 , 3 and 4.

6)  Why didn’t god create us instantaneously if he needed us so moth loved us or something ? Again contradiction

And this is why a creator god disproves himself.

 

Of course this model disproves a all powerful loving god that possesses some little intelligence not a infinitely evil , crazy or stupid god however I don’t think you would like to worship a infinitely evil creature.

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download