Why God Certainly Exists...

Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Why God Certainly Exists...

...But before I get to that, a few words directed to, and about, an OVERWHELMING majority of Atheists and Christians...

First, I find it quite troubling that you all consistently and with no hesitation conflate the following terms: "God", "Religion", "Bible", "Christianity".

God is NOT religion - in truth, religion has nothing to do with God. Rather it is a set of rituals, practices, and beliefs held by a common population. I assumed this was common knowledge, but after reading Dawkins latest book (and many posts on this forum) I was appalled at how many times the conflation occurred – and at how it is rarely if ever corrected.

God is NOT the Bible (or any "holy book&quotEye-wink - the Bible is simply a book. Look, I understand that when confronting a Christian it is perhaps best to do so on their 'home-turf' – however, not even deep in the recesses of the archives of the volumes of Christian Doctrine does it say anywhere that the Bible is God. Please, let both sides stop using this book to make claims about God (but by all means feel free to do so when constructing claims about Christianity).

God is NOT Christianity – despite the strong wishes on both sides, God is not Christianity. Unfortunately, it seems that while fully aware of the distinction, Atheists refuse to make it. Maybe this is because 98% of you so-called Atheists are in actuality only really anti-Christianity. Maybe you get a kick out of pointing out obvious contradiction, and refuse to step out of your Christianity/God comfort zone where truth is less ‘obvious’, and the logic a little more complex. Maybe you’ve had a bad experience with a supposedly Christian person or a non-denominational church…shit – we’ve all been there. Whatever your reason for doing so, enough is enough. And if your one of those who was just plain ignorant (most likely a Christian) – well now you know. Regardless of what you heard or think you know, God is not owned by, was not created/invented by, God is NOT Christianity.

 

Quickly though, do any of you know what “God” denotes? What is God? Anyone?

 

God is quite simply, in the lowest common denominator, if he exists, The Creator of the Universe.

 

Ok? Good…

 

So let me just get straight to it – God certainly exists.

 

There is a certain argument that when Atheists encounter, they either ignore it (a la Dawkins), or unknowingly conclude that a known and verified scientific principle (which they themselves use to defend evolution and attack creationism) is wrong. I am of course talking about the Cosmological Argument. It has many forms but the gist is, 1. There is a cause for every effect. 2. It is in theory possible to trace this cause/effect chain back infinitely. 3. However, because causes/effects occur in time there is no regressive infinite chain. 4. Thus, there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect. 5. This first cause is God.

 

The standard Atheistic replies are directed at 3 and 5. They’ll say, “An infinite chain is possible and perhaps actual, and besides even if its not, all you have is a first cause…not the God of the Bible, not the God of Christianity, blah, blah, blah…”

 

So lets talk about infinite chains - either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t.

 

Which is it going to be Atheist? For, if you say to the infinite chain, “yes”, you are directly countering the scientific fact that the Universe has an age! This is indisputable fact. We now know that the universe is expanding. Confirmation of this happens daily with the observation of redshifts of stars increasing over time and in proportion to distance. To quote Stephen Hawking, “The beginning of the universe is the beginning of time.” Further, you Atheists use this claim to bolster arguments against literal Creationism and the view that the earth was formed in seven days! You can’t have it both ways – remember either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t, there is no third choice.

 

What about 5? “Ok, so we have a first cause. An uncaused causer, the Unmoved Mover, Uncreated Creator… what we do not have the God of the Bible, not the God of Christianity, blah, blah, blah…”

 

Were you paying attention? God is not Christianity, the Bible, religion, etc. So why does the truth about God have to reflect Christianity, the Bible, religion, etc.? The answer is - it doesn’t.

 

God stands alone, without need for “holy books”, churches, ceremony, war, violence, hate, praise, worship, religion, Islam, Christianity, terrorism, patriotism, and yes even your belief…or mine for that matter.

 

Regardless, God most certainly exists - accept it and respect it – or don’t.

 

Just be sure to toe your own lines.


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
@Chukwu Hint:  You haven't

@Chukwu

Hint:  You haven't felt the urge to ask what "Arglebargle" is yet? 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote:  Again -

Chukwu wrote:

 Again - toe your own rope sir.

If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite. You subcribe to that belief? YOu don't believe in a big-bang? No expansion of the universe for you?

I think there is substantial evidence to support the big bang theory, but postulating what happened prior to that event does not support the god/first cause/creator arguement. We simply do not know. You may plug in any theory you want, but it is certainly not "evidence" for a creator. There are many scientific hypotheses also of events prior to the big bang, cyclical universe, multiverse. Those are just as "true" as your hypothesis. What it boils down to is we simply do not know if there was a "first" cause, many "first" causes or whatever you would like to call it. Simply plugging god into the equation does not make it so.


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Chukwu

todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

As far as stealing from any naturalism - it almost goes without saying...I mean there is no known mechanism for begetting or creation from the trancendental... this is inplicit in the argument

I'm having a hard time following you... are you conceding that you must steal from naturalism in order to make any god claim?

Quote:

second, if a thing is in fact FUNDAMENTALLY bound to what it does, than what it does is not 'moot',

You're missing the point for a second time. The point is that you can't talk about the 'thing' in the first place, because in order to do so you'd have to steal from naturalism.

Quote:

it is ITSELF FUNDAMENTAL to its ontology.

You're missing the point... the 'thing' CAN'T have an ontology in the first place, if you are stealing from naturalism.

 

Quote:

third - huh? bad cosmology what?

First cause arguments are self negating, arguments from ignornace. You have to violate your own first precept (everything needs a cause) and then you must argue from ignorance.

 

 

Sir, there is no ignorance on my part. No where in my construction (or in any vaild) construction of the argument is there the statement everything needs a cause. What IS stated is that there is a Cause for every Effect. Read Carefully.

If there is any ignorance, it is on your part for making an assumption that any construction of a universe w/ God is mutually exclusive with naturalism. In this construction a form of naturalism is IMPLICIT - that is, from that which proceeds it, its essence comes. This in neither detrimental nor unwanted in the Cos.Arg. There is no pre-concieved notion about what attributes God has, rather they follow from the argument. Did you miss the part about pantheistic notions of God being compatible? You must have...

Further, since you seem bent on bring fundamentally Christian divine attributes into an argument that makes no mention of them (where in the argument does it say anything about a trancendental or supernatural God - perhaps you don't understand what panthiesm is?) you must be waiting for some kind of explanation as to what God is made up of. Can you not see your mistake? THERE IS NO MENTION OF SUBSTANCE! 

So thus back to the issue, either you believe in a creator of the universe (GOD) or you accept infinite regression. Answer plainly sir, which is it? 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: I think there

BGH wrote:

I think there is substantial evidence to support the big bang theory, but postulating what happened prior to that event does not support the god/first cause/creator arguement. We simply do not know. You may plug in any theory you want, but it is certainly not "evidence" for a creator. There are many scientific hypotheses also of events prior to the big bang, cyclical universe, multiverse. Those are just as "true" as your hypothesis. What it boils down to is we simply do not know if there was a "first" cause, many "first" causes or whatever you would like to call it. Simply plugging god into the equation does not make it so.

Very nice points.

All we need to do to defeat the first cause argument once and for all is demonstrate that it's first premise commits a false dichotomy error. Cosmologists have shown that there are more than just two options (eternal universe/first cause)

From my brief essay on common cosmological errors:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions 

 

2) Either the universe was created, or it has always existed.

False dichotomy. There is no reason to hold that there MUST have been a creation point.

A singularity ("something timeless" prior to planck time) does not necessarily speak to ex nihilo creation - and again, big bang theory on its own, at the present, cannot tell us anything about the 'origin' of the singularity or if it has an origin at all.

I think people naturally hold that if the universe 'began' in a singularity, then it follows that it was 'created' or that it was 'caused'. But I think that cosmologists hold that it is an error to conflate the idea of a singularity with all existence being created ex nihlo.

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html

One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point" http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
  Laker-taker

 

Laker-taker wrote:

@Chukwu

Hint: You haven't felt the urge to ask what "Arglebargle" is yet?

 

Hint: Have I asked it? 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Chukwu

todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

BGH wrote:
This boils down to god of the gaps arguements. No one here knows the first cause or if there ever was a "first" cause. So instead it is asserted that god exisits because that gap has not been filled yet. Seems a little petty.....

 

Again - toe your own rope sir.

If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite. You subcribe to that belief?

You're contradicting youself.

If time is 'infinite' then that means there is no starting point.... but your argument depends on there being a starting point an infinite amount of time ago....

See the error?

 

You confuse yourself sir...

I dont think time goes back ad infinitum - THUS THE COSMOARG...whoa - cant be more clear

 

I ask him if HE subscribes to infinte regression since he claims "no one knows" first cause.

 

 


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu

Chukwu wrote:

 

Laker-taker wrote:

@Chukwu

Hint: You haven't felt the urge to ask what "Arglebargle" is yet?

 

Hint: Have I asked it?

 

No, you haven't. In fact, you conceded that: if Arglebargle is not the creator of the universe, then you would remain silent, a la Wittgentein, on the subject. Apparently, "creator of the universe" is the only topic in which you are interested...


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Sir, there

Chukwu wrote:

Sir, there is no ignorance on my part.

You're arguing from ignorance. This means that you are saying "You can't come up with any answer, ergo 'god did it'

Quote:
 

No where in my construction (or in any vaild) construction of the argument is there the statement everything needs a cause.

Actually, you only make one exception: 'god'

Ergo this is entirely ad hoc.

Quote:
 

 What IS stated is that there is a Cause for every Effect. Read Carefully.

1) I first read this argument before you were born.  

2) The only exception is 'god' ergo otherwise, you do hold that everything else requires a cause, so please, read your own argument carefully.

 

Quote:
 

 If there is any ignorance, it is on your part for making an assumption that any construction of a universe w/ God is mutually exclusive with naturalism.

Sigh. I didn't call you ignorant. I said your argument committed the fallacy of arguing to ignorance.

As for your 'god', if your 'god' is natural, then your first cause argument falls to pieces... as everything natural needs a cause as per your OWN argument.

So your argument requires a 'god' that is outside the causal chain.

Again, please read your own argument more carefully.

 

 

Quote:
 

Further, since you seem bent on bring fundamentally Christian divine attributes into an argument that makes no mention of them

You're a pantheist making a first cause argument?!!?

 How odd.

 

Quote:

(where in the argument does it say anything about a trancendental or supernatural God - perhaps you don't understand what panthiesm is?)  

If you are making a pantheistic argument, then you believe that 'god' IS the universe.... so you think the universe caused itself?

Quote:
 

So thus back to the issue, either you believe in a creator of the universe (GOD)

This is NOT pantheism!  

 

Quote:

or you accept infinite regression. 

Wrong. False dichotomy error. Please look above, read slowly, and then correct your error. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: todangst

Chukwu wrote:
todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

 

 

Again - toe your own rope sir.

If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite. You subcribe to that belief?

You're contradicting youself.

If time is 'infinite' then that means there is no starting point.... but your argument depends on there being a starting point an infinite amount of time ago....

See the error?

 

You confuse yourself sir...

I dont think time goes back ad infinitum - THUS THE COSMOARG...whoa - cant be more clear

No, you're clearly confusing yourself.

You just wrote this:

" If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite."

Hence you hold that without a first cause, there is a dilemma.... time 'extends back to the infinite'

And  again, for a second time, you are contradicting yourself. To say that there is an infinite regress is to [b] say that there is no starting point at all, not that there was a starting point an infinite amount of time ago

 

So your 'dilemma' position, the one in contrast to your own position is in error, it contradicts itself.

See the error now?

No, right?

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Laker-taker wrote: Chukwu

Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

 

 

Hint: Have I asked it?

 

No, you haven't. In fact, you conceded that: if Arglebargle is not the creator of the universe, then you would remain silent, a la Wittgentein, on the subject. Apparently, "creator of the universe" is the only topic in which you are interested...

 

Your point is going over his head... 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Chukwu wrote:

BGH wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

Again - toe your own rope sir.

If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite. You subcribe to that belief? YOu don't believe in a big-bang? No expansion of the universe for you?

I think there is substantial evidence to support the big bang theory, but postulating what happened prior to that event does not support the god/first cause/creator arguement. We simply do not know. You may plug in any theory you want, but it is certainly not "evidence" for a creator. There are many scientific hypotheses also of events prior to the big bang, cyclical universe, multiverse. Those are just as "true" as your hypothesis. What it boils down to is we simply do not know if there was a "first" cause, many "first" causes or whatever you would like to call it. Simply plugging god into the equation does not make it so.

There is no theory here, and nothing to plug in. There is no appeal to before the big bang, just as in guesses to what is "pre-big bang" make absolutely NO SENSE mathematically. I must not be speaking clearly - if you accept as truth that there was a prior causal chain to the big-bang, then you dont accept the Standard Model....PERIOD. You dont accept universal expansion, redshift, particle generation, etc. because this model works based on the assumption that at the singularity from which the big-bang proceeded, is also from whence time proceeded. There is no fuzzyness about this. Singualrity = t = 0. 

If you believe in an infinite regression than good for you, BUT toe your own rope. You now have no weapon in which to fight the literal Creationist who believes in a 7 day theory. Science is no longer your bedfellow. Its as simple as that. 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
You are on a roll todangst.

You are on a roll todangst.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
We have valid theories of

We have valid theories of physics regarding this universe, big bang, expansion, etc. Physicists do not know what the physics enviroment was prior to plank time. Fundamentel mathmatical physics models break down at the singularity.

 

God is not the automatic answer though.

 

The answer is we do not know! 


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
todangst

todangst wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

 

 

Hint: Have I asked it?

 

No, you haven't. In fact, you conceded that: if Arglebargle is not the creator of the universe, then you would remain silent, a la Wittgentein, on the subject. Apparently, "creator of the universe" is the only topic in which you are interested...

 

Your point is going over his head...

 

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case, yes. 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Chukwu

todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

Sir, there is no ignorance on my part.

You're arguing from ignorance. This means that you are saying "You can't come up with any answer, ergo 'god did it'

Quote:

No where in my construction (or in any vaild) construction of the argument is there the statement everything needs a cause.

Actually, you only make one exception: 'god'

Ergo this is entirely ad hoc.

Quote:

What IS stated is that there is a Cause for every Effect. Read Carefully.

1) I first read this argument before you were born.

2) The only exception is 'god' ergo otherwise, you do hold that everything else requires a cause, so please, read your own argument carefully.

 

Quote:

If there is any ignorance, it is on your part for making an assumption that any construction of a universe w/ God is mutually exclusive with naturalism.

Sigh. I didn't call you ignorant. I said your argument committed the fallacy of arguing to ignorance.

As for your 'god', if your 'god' is natural, then your first cause argument falls to pieces... as everything natural needs a cause as per your OWN argument.

So your argument requires a 'god' that is outside the causal chain.

Again, please read your own argument more carefully.

 

Quote:

Further, since you seem bent on bring fundamentally Christian divine attributes into an argument that makes no mention of them

You're a pantheist making a first cause argument?!!?

How odd.

Quote:

(where in the argument does it say anything about a trancendental or supernatural God - perhaps you don't understand what panthiesm is?)

If you are making a pantheistic argument, then you believe that 'god' IS the universe.... so you think the universe caused itself?

Quote:

So thus back to the issue, either you believe in a creator of the universe (GOD)

This is NOT pantheism!

Quote:

or you accept infinite regression.

Wrong. False dichotomy error. Please look above, read slowly, and then correct your error.

 

 

 

1) I first read this argument before you were born.

      Perhaps - you look old if that is your picture.

2) The only exception is 'god' ergo otherwise, you do hold that everything else requires a cause, so please, read your own argument carefully.

        Wrong - if your read this argument that long ago you shouldve taken the time to understand it. God is no exception in this construction of the argument for simply it is not necessary that EVERY Cause EXIST AS 'simultaneously' an Effect (surely i didnt need to point this out - keep up) - I didnt write otherwise so dont put words into my mouth (or keyboard)

3)...As for your 'god', if your 'god' is natural, then your first cause argument falls to pieces... as everything natural needs a cause as per your OWN argument.

    Wrong again, i.e. the FIRST cause is "natural" and uncaused

I "" natural because your bring the term in - if by natural you mean not trancendent or supernatural than nothing falls to pieces. There are several Pan-theistic constructions that appeal to this.

 4)You're a pantheist making a first cause argument?!!?How odd.

       Why is this odd? If it seems odd to you, you dont understand the cosmological argument as well as you think you do.

5)This is NOT pantheism!

 

    WOW - patently FALSE. It is indeed Pantheism, all that is needed is a recursive reformulation of the first premise whereby The universe by its own nature is responsiblefor the universe as an effect.

 

6) You claim it a false dichotomy, but there is absolutely no basis for such a claim. THis arguments validity has been checked and re-checked with various logics, and I have yet to see or hear of a refudation of its VALIDITY. When you have facts (come with some logic, im talking arguments, not the opinions of a book you read in passing at borders) as to the dichotomy being false ll be GLAD to read and digest.


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst

todangst wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

 

 

Hint: Have I asked it?

 

No, you haven't. In fact, you conceded that: if Arglebargle is not the creator of the universe, then you would remain silent, a la Wittgentein, on the subject. Apparently, "creator of the universe" is the only topic in which you are interested...

 

Your point is going over his head...

His point isnt going anywhere sir, it is just frankly irrelevant. He says it best, Creator of the Universe is what the Atheist denies and all I am interested in establishing. 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Chukwu

todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:
todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

 

 

Again - toe your own rope sir.

If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite. You subcribe to that belief?

You're contradicting youself.

If time is 'infinite' then that means there is no starting point.... but your argument depends on there being a starting point an infinite amount of time ago....

See the error?

 

You confuse yourself sir...

I dont think time goes back ad infinitum - THUS THE COSMOARG...whoa - cant be more clear

No, you're clearly confusing yourself.

You just wrote this:

" If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite."

Hence you hold that without a first cause, there is a dilemma.... time 'extends back to the infinite'

And again, for a second time, you are contradicting yourself. To say that there is an infinite regress is to say that there is no starting point at all, not that there was a starting point an infinite amount of time ago

 

So your 'dilemma' position, the one in contrast to your own position is in error, it contradicts itself.

See the error now?

No, right?

 

 

"If time is 'infinite' then that means there [b]is no starting point.... but your argument depends on there being a starting point an infinite amount of time ago...."

 

Wow - your all over the place...and wrong to boot.

 

My argument doesnt depend on starting points "an infinite amount of time ago" - frankly starting points and infinite regressions are mutually exclusive - THAT is what the argument rests on. If you think they're not mutually exclusive, than you misunderstand infinity.

 

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote:    2) The

Chukwu wrote:
 

 2) The only exception is 'god' ergo otherwise, you do hold that everything else requires a cause, so please, read your own argument carefully.

Wrong - if your read this argument that long ago you shouldve taken the time to understand it.  God is no exception

 

I think you just screwed up. If 'god' is no exception' then 'god' requires a cause.   Then you're argument commits an internal contradiction: 'god' is natural and part of the causal chain, ergo you still have an infinite regress problem.

 

 

Quote:

 3)...As for your 'god', if your 'god' is natural, then your first cause argument falls to pieces... as everything natural needs a cause as per your OWN argument.

Wrong again, i.e. the FIRST cause is "natural" and uncaused

If the first cause is 'natural', then as a natural entity, it requires a cause. If natural entities don't require a cause, then your entire argument falls to pieces.

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. 

 

Quote:
 

4)You're a pantheist making a first cause argument?!!?How odd.

Why is this odd?

Because to a pantheist, there is no creator per se... the universe is 'god'   ... yet you speak in terms of a creator.

 

 

 

Quote:
 

6) You claim it a false dichotomy, but there is absolutely no basis for such a claim. 

  I just gave you one above.  Your claim commits a false dichotomy error. You are patently wrong to say that either there is a creation or an infinite universe. I've shown that there are more than two options, ergo your argument dies here.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
1.Either time streches back

1.Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

 

$100 bucks to the first to prove this a false dichotomy.... 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: todangst

Chukwu wrote:
todangst wrote:

No, you're clearly confusing yourself.

You just wrote this:

" If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite."

Hence you hold that without a first cause, there is a dilemma.... time 'extends back to the infinite'

And again, for a second time, you are contradicting yourself. To say that there is an infinite regress is to say that there is no starting point at all, not that there was a starting point an infinite amount of time ago

 

So your 'dilemma' position, the one in contrast to your own position is in error, it contradicts itself.

See the error now?

No, right?

 

"If time is 'infinite' then that means there [b]is no starting point.... but your argument depends on there being a starting point an infinite amount of time ago...."

 

Wow - your all over the place...and wrong to boot.

Please say this again, but this time, look in a mirror. 

 

Quote:
 

My argument doesnt depend on starting points "an infinite amount of time ago"

Yes, it does.

 

You just wrote this:

" If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite."

Quote:
 

- frankly starting points and infinite regressions are mutually exclusive - THAT is what the argument rests on.

No, it does not.  

 

One more time:

You just wrote this:

" If there was no first cause - time extends back in the infinite."

 

This implies that time extends BACK IN THE INFINITE... I.E. IT CROSSES AN INFINITE TIME PERIOD, WHICH REQUIRES A STARTING POINT.

How many times will I need to repeat this for you? You're argunment contradicts its own premise. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: 1.Either

Chukwu wrote:

1.Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

Again, you're CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!  If your hold that 'time stretches back INFINITELY', AS A DILEMMA then this requires you to hold that there  is a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago, that has been traversed. 

Otherwise, there is no dilemma. None. Zero.

 

 

Quote:

 $100 bucks to the first to prove this a false dichotomy....

Pay your money to Stephen Hawkings:

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html

One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point" http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html

"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."

In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.

 

I've already posted this once.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: todangst

Chukwu wrote:
todangst wrote:
Laker-taker wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

 

 

Hint: Have I asked it?

 

No, you haven't. In fact, you conceded that: if Arglebargle is not the creator of the universe, then you would remain silent, a la Wittgentein, on the subject. Apparently, "creator of the universe" is the only topic in which you are interested...

 

Your point is going over his head...

His point isnt going anywhere sir 

except over your head... he's pointing out that assigning a role to "X" does not provide an ontology for "X"

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
To add to this: There's a

To add to this:

There's a great book called "Time Travel In Einstein's Universe" by J. Richard Gott, out of Princeton.  Chapter 5 is what I'm referring to here.

He wrote a paper with Li Xin Li called "Can the Universe Create Itself?"  The central premise of the paper was to prove that the Universe has a geometry which makes it possible to have the Universe be its own mother - before the Big Bang.

I'm little more than a layman on the topic, but the way I understand it is this:  before the Big Bang, there was a time loop.  Each time the Universe went through this loop, it stood a finite chance of quantum tunneling out and inflating.  The result of this tunneling/inflation was the Big Bang.

Feel free to Google it up.  I need a couple more years of physics before I'll tackle this one.

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Chukwu

todangst wrote:

Chukwu wrote:

2) The only exception is 'god' ergo otherwise, you do hold that everything else requires a cause, so please, read your own argument carefully.

Wrong - if your read this argument that long ago you shouldve taken the time to understand it. God is no exception

I think you just screwed up. If 'god' is no exception' then 'god' requires a cause. Then you're argument commits an internal contradiction: 'god' is natural and part of the causal chain, ergo you still have an infinite regress problem.

 

Quote:

3)...As for your 'god', if your 'god' is natural, then your first cause argument falls to pieces... as everything natural needs a cause as per your OWN argument.

Wrong again, i.e. the FIRST cause is "natural" and uncaused

If the first cause is 'natural', then as a natural entity, it requires a cause. If natural entities don't require a cause, then your entire argument falls to pieces.

You're contradicting yourself all over the place.

 

Quote:

4)You're a pantheist making a first cause argument?!!?How odd.

Why is this odd?

Because to a pantheist, there is no creator per se... the universe is 'god' ... yet you speak in terms of a creator.

 

 

Quote:

6) You claim it a false dichotomy, but there is absolutely no basis for such a claim.

I just gave you one above. Your claim commits a false dichotomy error. You are patently wrong to say that either there is a creation or an infinite universe. I've shown that there are more than two options, ergo your argument dies here.

1.""If the first cause is 'natural', then as a natural entity, it requires a cause. If natural entities don't require a cause, then your entire argument falls to pieces.""

You're contradicting yourself all over the place.""

 

todangst,

You conflate "natural" and "material" - I use "natural" (and "naturalism&quotEye-wink with no hesitation because in any cosmological argument wherein a cause -> effect chain is established, it makes no  sense to diffrentiate ANY element in the chain based on substance. Why? because there is no known mechanism from creation from the "trancendental", "etheral", "supernatual" , to the "material". (THere are appeals to creation from "nothing", but "nothing" in my estimation is unncessary - though random quantum particle generation from "nothing" is a noted phenomenon) The ONLY diffrentiation between first cause and second cause is that first cause is uncaused. Is the first cause's causal independance necessary - yes. But this follows from the fact that we KNOW that time does not extend backwards in the infinite (WE KNOW THERE IS A TIME ZERO - ATHEISTS USE IT IN ARUGUMENTS AGAINST RELIGION ALL THE TIME WHY DENY IT NOW?). So the first cause's necessary causal independance is  reliant SOLELY on the appeal to a FINITE TIME. So, the double dichotomy is: FINITE TIME <->FIRST CAUSE ;;; INFINITE TIME <-> NO FIRST CAUSE/NO STARTING POINT;;;

So again what is it going to be Atheist?

Do you accept an infinite regression?(absurd)

 

or

 

Do you accept that there is a first cause?(God) 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Chukwu

todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."

In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.

 

I've already posted this once.

 

Im sorry - this quote bolsters my (any) Cosmological appeal - In fact my Hawking quote came from that very same book ("The beginning of the universe is the beginning of time&quotEye-wink. A finite and boundless universe is not a third option - it is one of TWO options and it is the ONLY rational of the two. 

Read the book - don't get excerpts from the internet and confuse yourself.


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Chukwu

todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

1.Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

Again, you're CONTRADICTING YOURSELF! If your hold that 'time stretches back INFINITELY', AS A DILEMMA then this requires you to hold that there is a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago, that has been traversed.

Otherwise, there is no dilemma. None. Zero.


 

Common atheists, anyone with a trivial understanding of logic can see this is just plain wrong... Well, Im not letting you get away with this...

 

#1 - A contradiction is of the form A & -A

#2 - My statement is thus: Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

#3 - Any old dick can see this is of the form A ∨ -A

     So... there is no contradiction in form...

Let's see if there is a contradiction in terms...

 

#1 -  Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

        Time streches back infinitely (A)

   ∨

         TIme does NOT strech back infintely (-A)

 

#2 A ∨ -A is a tautology; always true...

 

"...then this requires you to hold that there is a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago, that has been traversed. "

No - it doesnt require me to do shit but accept A or -A

Making up fantastic bullshit and sticking to it may work sometimes... 


Mordagar
RRS local affiliateSuperfan
Mordagar's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote:

Chukwu wrote:

Yes - a first cause entails a creator(what is a cause if its not causing something, and since were talking about causing be-ing, than we're directly talking about creation).

And if it makes you more comfotable calling the first cause something else - by all means call it what you want. But why do you have to play the name game the rest of the unthinking world is playing? Strip from your own mind any historical connotation from the word God because all such connotation is superflous. "God" simply denotes the creator of the Universe. Period.

 

To you, the connotation of the word God is a simple denotation of the creator of the universe, but the connotation is much different for me. You can call the first cause anything you wish, including God, but I will choose not to refer to it with that word. It is misleading and dishonest in my opinion, and is a semantical ploy.

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]


MrRage
Posts: 892
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: todangst

Chukwu wrote:
todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

1.Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

Again, you're CONTRADICTING YOURSELF! If your hold that 'time stretches back INFINITELY', AS A DILEMMA then this requires you to hold that there is a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago, that has been traversed.

Otherwise, there is no dilemma. None. Zero.


 

Common atheists, anyone with a trivial understanding of logic can see this is just plain wrong... Well, Im not letting you get away with this...

 

#1 - A contradiction is of the form A & -A

#2 - My statement is thus: Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

#3 - Any old dick can see this is of the form A ∨ -A

So... there is no contradiction in form...

Let's see if there is a contradiction in terms...

 

#1 - Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

Time streches back infinitely (A)

TIme does NOT strech back infintely (-A)

 

#2 A ∨ -A is a tautology; always true...

 

"...then this requires you to hold that there is a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago, that has been traversed. "

No - it doesnt require me to do shit but accept A or -A

Making up fantastic bullshit and sticking to it may work sometimes...

Could time not stretch back infinitely, but there still be an infinite casual chain? Isn't this a possibility if time is finite but has no boundary?


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu, this thread can be

Chukwu, this thread can be about two things--it can be an argument for God, or it can be a discussion about the origins of the universe. it can't be both.

the reason that it can't be both is because God is a charged word-historically, emotionally, anthropologically, etc. Even in your own language use, you showed how the word God can affect something. It's not just a word that means 'first cause' even if you accept this cosmololgical argument.

Chukwu wrote:
Clearly he exists independently, but as to whether or not he cares - thats not a question anyone but God can answer.

the origin of the universe is a 'he' who can answer? see this is where the anthropomorphic connotations of a God leak in to your argument. You were not able to "strip from your own mind any historical connotation from the word God because all such connotation is superflous" as you advised me to. That's ok that you weren't able to do that; I wouldn't expect anyone, including myself, to really be able to use the word God in a discussion about cosmological origins without lots of other issues getting tangled-God is a loaded term; it's an old word.

you just need to answer for yourself if you are really trying to have a evenhanded discussion about the origin of the universe or if you are in actuality trying to provide a charged theological argument.

also, the word 'creator' has many of the same problems that will confuse issues in this dialogue that the word God does, if you are not able to strip your mind from its historical connotations.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


MrRage
Posts: 892
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: you just need

mouse wrote:
you just need to answer for yourself if you are really trying to have a evenhanded discussion about the origin of the universe or if you are in actuality trying to provide a charged theological argument.

I agree.

Chukwu, if we conceded the point to you my question would be, "So, what?" It would change very little about my world view. It would change nothing about how I live my daily life. It's an interesting question worth discussing, but in the end what does it really get us?


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Could time not stretch

Could time not stretch back infinitely, but there still be an infinite casual chain? Isn't this a possibility if time is finite but has no boundary?

So is it possible for:

A: time strech back infinitely

   &

B: Infinite causal Chain

    &

-A:Time is finite (boundless refers to its space-time geometrical representation)  ?

 

No - While THe statement (A&B) exists with no contradiction clearly (A & B & -A ) doesnt 


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Mordagar wrote:   To you,

Mordagar wrote:

 

To you, the connotation of the word God is a simple denotation of the creator of the universe, but the connotation is much different for me. You can call the first cause anything you wish, including God, but I will choose not to refer to it with that word. It is misleading and dishonest in my opinion, and is a semantical ploy.

The connotation of "GOD" to me (as well as its denotation) is indeed "the creator of the universe" - but this isn't something I made up or somethind arbitrary...this definition is implicit in any and every existing (or pre-existing) sense and conception of the word "GOD"...

This isnt a boisterous claim - it is just fact. In Mono- , Pan-, even in Poly- thiestic conceptions, in the grouping of everything "GOD" (or in this case "GODS&quotEye-wink denotes in case, one common element is that of creator.

So if creator is common to every conception of GOD, we can be ASSURED that if God exists, he exists as creator of the universe - no trick or semantical hocus-pocus - certainly no dishonesty. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
after reading Dawkins

after reading Dawkins latest book (and many posts on this forum) I was appalled at how many times the conflation occurred – and at how it is rarely if ever corrected.

Simply because I stick up for Dawkins (the man is after all, my hero) I would point out that I also read the God Delusion and he does indeed draw the differences between the concept of God as I put many posts ago on this thread, which he calls "Einsteinian religion" because he attributes the concept to Einstein (I personally call it Sagan's metaphorical God of the cosmos) and religious theistic concepts of God which you rightfully point out are ridiculous. It is these claims, claims that ring of anthropomorphism, deism etc that he is demolishing.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote:

mouse wrote:

Chukwu, this thread can be about two things--it can be an argument for God, or it can be a discussion about the origins of the universe. it can't be both.

the reason that it can't be both is because God is a charged word-historically, emotionally, anthropologically, etc. Even in your own language use, you showed how the word God can affect something. It's not just a word that means 'first cause' even if you accept this cosmololgical argument.

Chukwu wrote:
Clearly he exists independently, but as to whether or not he cares - thats not a question anyone but God can answer.

the origin of the universe is a 'he' who can answer? see this is where the anthropomorphic connotations of a God leak in to your argument. You were not able to "strip from your own mind any historical connotation from the word God because all such connotation is superflous" as you advised me to. That's ok that you weren't able to do that; I wouldn't expect anyone, including myself, to really be able to use the word God in a discussion about cosmological origins without lots of other issues getting tangled-God is a loaded term; it's an old word.

you just need to answer for yourself if you are really trying to have a evenhanded discussion about the origin of the universe or if you are in actuality trying to provide a charged theological argument.

also, the word 'creator' has many of the same problems that will confuse issues in this dialogue that the word God does, if you are not able to strip your mind from its historical connotations.

If I conveyed anything by using the pronoun "he" - it is that I was schooled in a time when somekind of subconcious sexism existed...thats all.

You claim this thread can be an argument for God, or it can be a discussion about the origins of the universe - but it can't be both...

I respond, "Of course it can." - the argument exists to ESTABLISH the origins of the universe using what we KNOW about time. It does so. Again, if you are so scarred or scared by Christianity or some other religion, that you can't use the word "GOD" to convey what it ACTUALLY denotes - so absorbed in colloquial usage and pronouns - use another word. It doesnt matter. All the argument gives us is a creator - i.e. an entity DIRECTLY responsible for the universe in-be-ing.

Now I guess your gist (or somebody else's) is that you don't think this changes a damn thing. I am aghast that an Atheist could draw such a conclusion. For in my understanding of what an "Atheist" is, such a person denies that the Universe has a creator. Dawkins & Russell(Bertrand) are two atheists who have to my knowledge, explicitly said such things. If you on the other hand are somekind of "weak Atheist" in the sense that you don't deny that the universe had a creator "GOD" - but instead deny certain traits commonly thrown on and associated with "GOD" - then I posit that you are less an Atheist, and more somekind of anti_CHristian, anti-Religionist, or some such thing. If this is the case, I understand you being underwhelmed; for you are already a believer in a "GOD". But if you are not a "weak Atheist" - then you should perhaps care to explore once again the argumment - that is if you, on top of being an Atheist, care at all about truth (understanding things as they exist in actuality).

I can't make you care - or make this overwhelming to you...


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
We deny the universe had a

We deny the universe had a creator because attached to the word creator is the notion of sentience. The universe was spawned, it had a cause but not a creator. If you use he because you were schooled in a sexist system, you should really kick the habit..

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: We deny

deludedgod wrote:
We deny the universe had a creator because attached to the word creator is the notion of sentience. The universe was spawned, it had a cause but not a creator. If you use he because you were schooled in a sexist system, you should really kick the habit..

This is an extremely fuzzy kind of thinking; So you think the universe was "spawned" vs. "created"? What? Either "spawned" is equivalent to "created" or your proposing somekind of generation from nothing. Explain the difference with some rigor please...

...Upon another reading of your post, it is now CLEAR that YOU are a "weak Atheist" - for your concern is not whether the universe was created - you believe it was; rather - you are concerned that what is responsible for its creation is "sentient" or "intelligent"...

I am of the opinion that GOD's "intelligent" (i think it follows from the causal chain, i.e. the physical intelligence the universe shows can be no more that the intelligence it is begotten from(even and especially if it is itself resposible for its own existence)  - but as the argument presented speaks only to establishing a creator, this is neither here nor there.


gregfl
Posts: 168
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: God is

Chukwu wrote:

God is quite simply, in the lowest common denominator, if he exists, The Creator of the Universe.

Gpd is much more than that.  God is defined by as an entity, a being, bearing a sexual identity and specific attributes including human attributes.  Your definition of God is overbroad and therefore without any coherent identity.

Further, you haven't demonstrated yet that the universe was created by an outside force.  All we know is by current theory time began at the singularity.  We know nothing about before the singularity.  Your conclusion flutters in the wind until you can demonstrate that matter/energy was created which existed prior to the singularity.  BTW, what are you calling the universe?   If you are, as I strongly suspect, speaking of the post big bang universe, then you haven't demonstrated that "God" is anything but a word you use that you can't attach to anything.  In other words, it is meaningless and betrays its common usage. 

Quote:

So let me just get straight to it – God certainly exists.

Well, we can all play this game.  God = whatever I want it to mean. 

God = the maker of my ice cream

Johnny made my ice cream

Johnny is god.

So what?  You have accomplished nothing with these assertions.  Moving on.

Quote:

 1. There is a cause for every effect.

 

Lets accept this for arguments sake and see where it leads....

 

Quote:

2. It is in theory possible to trace this cause/effect chain back infinitely.

Again, accepted for arguments sake.

 

Quote:

 3. However, because causes/effects occur in time there is no regressive infinite chain.

 

first, you give a free pass to "god" without ever defining it.  God is infinite by your definition but nothing else is.  This is suspect... 

Second, This reasoning is flawed.   Certainly matter/energy existed before time.   If something had to "cause" matter/energy, it did so before time. If Time was created at the singularity, then using your argument.. matter/energy is an effect without a cause.  You are left calling matter/energy god, and that is just a silly re-definition.  Sorry, you fail. 

This blows your argument apart.  You can't proceed beyond this.  However, you do.....

 

Quote:

 4. Thus, there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect. 5. This first cause is God.

first, we have already demonstrated that matter/energy existed before time.  the inherent properties of  Matter/energy could have caused the chain of events leading up to the big bang.  Again, you demonstrate nothing here as your argument died at #3

And again,  You are takiing a word and assigning a definition in order to define "god" into existence.  Calling matter/energy "god" is just a convenience that I am not going to grant you.  The term "god" has a specific meaning in common language, and you are being disengenious trying to use a floating definition to bolster your theory.

Quote:

So lets talk about infinite chains - either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t.

Wrong.  We can all agree that time began at the singularity, and that matter/energy/the unknown existed prior to time.  This speaks nothing of infinity, it only speaks of Time.  Can you see your error here? 

Quote:

What about 5? “Ok, so we have a first cause. An uncaused causer, the Unmoved Mover, Uncreated Creator…

Not okay.  You haven't demonstrated anything but 1) under current big bang theory, time began at the after the singularity.  2) we know little to nothing about matter/energy before the big bang.  All your adjectives aside, you haven't demonstrated anything.

Quote:

Regardless, God most certainly exists - accept it and respect it – or don’t.

Regardless, you haven't gained one yard in demonstrating god exists.  You don't even have a coherent definition of god.  Accept this  or reject it.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
I agree with you for the

I agree with you for the most part, Chukwu, but I disagree that the prime mover must be an entity.  For an entity to exist, wouldn't it have to exist somewhere?  And this universe that the entity "lives" in, what was its prime mover.  And if you are to say that this entity is timeless, then how would it ever be able to start the universe - indeed, how could it do anything, or even be considered an entity?  If you are able to explain actions without time, it could be used for our univers as well.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


MrRage
Posts: 892
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: MrRage

Chukwu wrote:
MrRage wrote:

Could time not stretch back infinitely, but there still be an infinite casual chain? Isn't this a possibility if time is finite but has no boundary?

So is it possible for:

A: time strech back infinitely

&

B: Infinite causal Chain

&

-A:Time is finite (boundless refers to its space-time geometrical representation) ?

 

No - While THe statement (A&B) exists with no contradiction clearly (A & B & -A ) doesnt

I was asking if the statement (B & -A) is possible. Boundless does refer to space-time's geometry, and this would mean that there's no t=0 (time zero). But the geometry could be such that it could allow an infinite chain.

I'm no sure how this gels with the current models, but all I'm asking is in theory could this work?


MrRage
Posts: 892
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Now I guess

Chukwu wrote:
Now I guess your gist (or somebody else's) is that you don't think this changes a damn thing.

That was my gist.

Chukwu wrote:
I am aghast that an Atheist could draw such a conclusion. For in my understanding of what an "Atheist" is, such a person denies that the Universe has a creator. Dawkins & Russell(Bertrand) are two atheists who have to my knowledge, explicitly said such things. If you on the other hand are somekind of "weak Atheist" in the sense that you don't deny that the universe had a creator "GOD" - but instead deny certain traits commonly thrown on and associated with "GOD" - then I posit that you are less an Atheist, and more somekind of anti_CHristian, anti-Religionist, or some such thing.

I see. You're another one of those your-not-really-an-atheist types. I say this in all seriousness: you've at least made your case with some style. (See for contrast this thread.) I haven't really heard this definition of "strong" and "weak" atheists before. It at least makes some sense.

Your idea of god wouldn't mean much to me because it doesn't provide for a god that is active in human affairs. Yes, I'm someone who, at least, "deny[s] certain traits commonly thrown on and associated with 'GOD'," but it doesn't make me anti-religion, just without religion. I don't have some need or desire to call myself an atheist (or some a- or anti- something), so if I'm less of an atheist *shrugs*.

Chukwu wrote:
If this is the case, I understand you being underwhelmed; for you are already a believer in a "GOD". But if you are not a "weak Atheist" - then you should perhaps care to explore once again the argumment - that is if you, on top of being an Atheist, care at all about truth (understanding things as they exist in actuality).

Maybe you can show your hand. Are you a weak atheist (by your definition) or a pantheist, Christian, etc.?

Chukwu wrote:
I can't make you care - or make this overwhelming to you...

Oh, I care. It's a fascinating question, and I've enjoyed reading this thread.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
This is an extremely fuzzy

This is an extremely fuzzy kind of thinking; So you think the universe was "spawned" vs. "created"? What? Either "spawned" is equivalent to "created" or your proposing somekind of generation from nothing. Explain the difference with some rigor please...

Very well. I was attempting to avoid the word creator for the same reason that you avoid the word God: The false concepts that have become attached to the word have become deeply ingrained. When we think of "God" we for some reason think of an old man in white beard. Likewise when we think of creator we think of an entity. It is for that reason that I dislike saying "the universe had a creator",

.Upon another reading of your post, it is now CLEAR that YOU are a "weak Atheist" - for your concern is not whether the universe was created - you believe it was; rather - you are concerned that what is responsible for its creation is "sentient" or "intelligent"...

The only cosmological point I made is that by the correct definition of the word, whatever spawned the universe must be called god. If it is energy, then so be it. i adopt a Sagan-esque veiw of the concept: God is the energy that flows through my synapses to make conciousness, it is the universe in itself and everything in it, God is not the creator but rather the cosmos in its entirety.

If it were up to me, the concepts of sentient anthropomorphic God would be wiped clean off the face of the Earth. It has produce nothing but misery.

To help highlight what I mean, I will repost something I made two posts ago:

after reading Dawkins latest book (and many posts on this forum) I was appalled at how many times the conflation occurred – and at how it is rarely if ever corrected.

Simply because I stick up for Dawkins (the man is after all, my hero) I would point out that I also read the God Delusion and he does indeed draw the differences between the concept of God as I put many posts ago on this thread, which he calls "Einsteinian religion" because he attributes the concept to Einstein (I personally call it Sagan's metaphorical God of the cosmos) and religious theistic concepts of God which you rightfully point out are ridiculous. It is these claims, claims that ring of anthropomorphism, deism etc that he is demolishing.

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MrRage
Posts: 892
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Simply

deludedgod wrote:
Simply because I stick up for Dawkins (the man is after all, my hero) I would point out that I also read the God Delusion and he does indeed draw the differences between the concept of God as I put many posts ago on this thread, which he calls "Einsteinian religion" because he attributes the concept to Einstein (I personally call it Sagan's metaphorical God of the cosmos) and religious theistic concepts of God which you rightfully point out are ridiculous. It is these claims, claims that ring of anthropomorphism, deism etc that he is demolishing.

That's spot on, deludedgod. I have no problems with Chukwu's sort of theism. The reason I don't mind it is Chukwu isn't relying on faith. When I say I don't believe in a god, but would change my mind if presented with evidence, this is the sort of god I could see myself believing in. I'm very strong in being an atheist about the Christian (or the Muslim, or insert other religion) concept of god.

I think the only real contention here is the Cosmological Argument.


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote:

MrRage wrote:
I see. You're another one of those your-not-really-an-atheist types. I say this in all seriousness: you've at least made your case with some style. (See for contrast this thread.) I haven't really heard this definition of "strong" and "weak" atheists before. It at least makes some sense. Your idea of god wouldn't mean much to me because it doesn't provide for a god that is active in human affairs. Yes, I'm someone who, at least, "deny[s] certain traits commonly thrown on and associated with 'GOD'," but it doesn't make me anti-religion, just without religion. I don't have some need or desire to call myself an atheist (or some a- or anti- something), so if I'm less of an atheist *shrugs*.

Ok, I can see initially how this idea of God seems at first, almost pointless... But if you continue to think about it some more you should see that the "entity" who's existence is established by the argument, could possibly range from "extremely powerful" and active to "extremely weak" and passive. The argument is only meant to establish the "entity"'s existence. All it is doing is shifting the primary question from, "Is there a God?" to "What KIND of God created the universe?" By kind I am not reffering to a religion, as in "the Christian kind of God", etc...Rather, I am speaking to the entity's SPECIFIC traits...Some might jump on this analogy but, I think this argument is a fatal stroke to "strong Atheism" in the same way Descartes establishment of oneself (I think, therefore...) was a fatal blow to absolute Scepticism - In the way that no longer was EVERYTHING able to be questioned after Descartes (i.e. SOMEkind of "ME" certainly exists) , no longer can we question that SOMEkind of GOD(entity responsible for the universe's existence exists). Now it is the work of you and I and every other thinking man to quabble and establish WHAT CAN BE KNOWN about this entity.

MrRage wrote:

Maybe you can show your hand. Are you a weak atheist (by your definition) or a pantheist, Christian, etc.?

I am a theist. I know that a God exists. I know that this God has an extreme "power"(ability to act?) if its action can produce such a universe. I make no certain claims either way as to its level of interaction with the universe (yet) as I have no basis from which to reason it so (if God is a fundamental energy it is possible that it could be a kind of "personal God&quotEye-wink. I hope by my stating this that its clear what I meant above - there is a first cause, lets attempt to know all we can.

MrRage wrote:
Chukwu wrote:
I can't make you care - or make this overwhelming to you...
Oh, I care. It's a fascinating question, and I've enjoyed reading this thread.

It reads more sarcastic and flippant that it was intended to be(not at all sarcastic, etc.) In any case it certainly is facinating and in my opinion the most fundamental question.


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
I'm obviously wasting my

I'm obviously wasting my breath, but, what the hell, I'll chime in... 

Chukwu wrote:

Ok, I can see initially how this idea of God seems at first, almost pointless...

Correct. 

Chukwu wrote:

 But if you continue to think about it some more you should see that the "entity" who's existence is established by the argument, could possibly range from "extremely powerful" and active to "extremely weak" and passive. The argument is only meant to establish the "entity"'s existence. All it is doing is shifting the primary question from, "Is there a God?" to "What KIND of God created the universe?"

Since you have weakened the term "God" to even include Pantheism, well, your statement "God exists" is no more informative than "something exists".  Okay, something exists, and if you say that, by definition, is "God", okay, great "God" exists.  So what? So does the shit in my toilet.   At least I have some idea of what the shit in my toilet is composed of and is capable of doing.  I don't have that for your "God".

 Ultimately, it is certainly a true statement that I don't know everything.  So, I won't try to prove whether or not a god was necessary.  Though I personally agree with Todangst's basic argument, I won't myself further that argument herein, it goes over your head anyway.  So, for my purposes here, I will simply pleed ignorance, I don't know what might exist "beyond" the universe.  If its a "God", great.  I have no idea.

But, I can say, that I find all the alleged dieties I've been presented with (Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, Zeus, Mithras, etc., with the possible exceptions of deism and patheism) well, none of them seem very likely to me.


Chukwu
Theist
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
caseagainstfaith

caseagainstfaith wrote:

I'm obviously wasting my breath, but, what the hell, I'll chime in...

Chukwu wrote:

Ok, I can see initially how this idea of God seems at first, almost pointless...

Correct.

Chukwu wrote:

But if you continue to think about it some more you should see that the "entity" who's existence is established by the argument, could possibly range from "extremely powerful" and active to "extremely weak" and passive. The argument is only meant to establish the "entity"'s existence. All it is doing is shifting the primary question from, "Is there a God?" to "What KIND of God created the universe?"

Since you have weakened the term "God" to even include Pantheism, well, your statement "God exists" is no more informative than "something exists". Okay, something exists, and if you say that, by definition, is "God", okay, great "God" exists. So what? So does the shit in my toilet. At least I have some idea of what the shit in my toilet is composed of and is capable of doing. I don't have that for your "God".

Ultimately, it is certainly a true statement that I don't know everything. So, I won't try to prove whether or not a god was necessary. Though I personally agree with Todangst's basic argument, I won't myself further that argument herein, it goes over your head anyway. So, for my purposes here, I will simply pleed ignorance, I don't know what might exist "beyond" the universe. If its a "God", great. I have no idea.

But, I can say, that I find all the alleged dieties I've been presented with (Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, Zeus, Mithras, etc., with the possible exceptions of deism and patheism) well, none of them seem very likely to me.

Wow...

Read a book - read the argument - engage the ideas - weigh them AND THEN respond...

 Your statements lack focus, don't address the argument; your ideas are tired and poorly conveyed, and it all just comes off as a juvenile attempt at refutation and insult...

Are you afraid that your whole world view is built upon at best an inconsistency and at worst a contradiction? 


Yiab
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: 1. There is a

Chukwu wrote:
1. There is a cause for every effect.

Please define these terms "cause" and "effect" down to the quantum level. Every time I have tried to do so, I come to the conclusion that cause and effect are useful distinctions only on the macroscopic level and, as such, have no place in discussions surrounding the time when the universe was less than a dozen Planck times old.

If you do not believe that quantum-level definitions of cause and effect are necessary, remember that all the matter in our galaxy was squashed into less than 1 cubic Planck length after the beginning of the universe so quantum effects definitely come into play.

 

Chukwu wrote:
2. It is in theory possible to trace this cause/effect chain back infinitely.

Assuming cause and effect are well-defined, we cannot necessarily trace a cause-and-effect chain back infinitely because this assumes that all the cause-effect relationships occur above the measurable minimum space-time unit. Of course, this is really an academic argument since what I believe you meant to say is:

2. It is in theory possible for a cause/effect chain to extend back infinitely.

 

Chukwu wrote:
3. However, because causes/effects occur in time there is no regressive infinite chain.

This is simply a temporal version of Xeno's paradox. Calculus clearly solves this by allowing us to have ever-shrinking times between consecutive events, converging to a point which is a finite distance in the past.

Since Planck time is a limitation on measurement, we cannot say whether or not it is a limitation on reality, hence we have the "hidden variables" interpretation of quantum physics which allows causes and effects to happen beneath Planck's barrier despite being unmeasurable.

Since I am merely presenting an alternate to your proposed "only possible theory", the inherent unmeasurability of this simply means that we cannot falsify this proposition and so it is not a scientific one - but it is still a completely naturalistic explanation.

 

Chukwu wrote:
4. Thus, there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect.

This is further fallacious reasoning since said "first cause" need not be singular. Assuming the previous three steps, we could justify the universe with any number of independant uncaused causes, none of which need exist for even an instant longer than the beginning of the universe. After all, can you really say that, on the microscopic level, a "cause" continues to "exist" once it's had its "effect"?

Additionally, it is perfectly reasonable at present to view the universe as a single quantum foam fluctuation, which is in principle entirely uncaused. In this case, your "first cause" would be either nothing or the universe itself.

 

Chukwu wrote:
5. This first cause is God.

This point has been argued sufficiently in this thread already.

To add my own 2c, calling this first cause "God" is to use a highly loaded term akin to naming a puppy "bastard sonofabitch".

In addition, as I said above, even if your argument were valid it would only prove that there was a God, not that it exists now.

 

Chukwu wrote:
So lets talk about infinite chains - either time stretches back infinitely, or it doesn’t.

This dichotomy is a valid one only if time is linear in nature. Of course it is very difficult to imagine what nonlinear time might be like and time is certainly locally linear, so it is natural to make this assumption all else being equal.

Unfortunately for your argument all else is not equal. Relativity theory clearly demonstrates that gravity and acceleration warp space-time and this has even been directly tested. "Warped" space-time (or more accurately "curved" space-time) requires space-time to be non-euclidean in nature. As a non-euclidean 4-dimensional manifold, any given section is locally euclidean (i.e. locally flat) but globally curved. If we look at time isolated from space, therefore, we are

a) unlikely to be able to get an accurate understanding of the global nature of time, since some of its nature lies in its coexistence with the three dimensions we call space; and

b) still likely to observe a time which is not globally linear.

Since mathematical models of this type are the only ones we have at present which accurately describe our observations of space-time, our evidence appears to contradict our natural assumption of linear time (just as it earlier contradicted our assumption of a flat Earth).

It is possible that, in future, we will develop a better mathematical model or discover evidence which leads us to another already existing one in which time can once again be seen as linear, but at present evidence points straight (no pun intended) towards non-linear time.

 

So after defeating the absoluteness of every step of your cosmological argument, I'd like to deal with a couple other points brought up in the thread.

 

1) Folks, please stop beating on Chukwu for referring to "God" as "he". English has no generally recognized personal neuter pronoun and if ey (Chukwu) wishes to think of this first cause anthropomorphically, the natural term to use is the pronoun which used to be gender-neutral in English, namely "he" (remember, far pre-feminism, "he" was the generic pronoun and "she" was the specifically female pronoun - this bias is still reflected today in the fact that we group "women and minorities" together).

 

2) Energy is not a physical object. The scientific definition of energy is "the ability to do work" and an ability is an inherently abstract referrent (not to mention "work" being an abstraction itself). Even particular varieties of energy are not physical objects, they are patterns or relationships between physical objects.

Kinetic energy: dependant on the momentum of an object which is, in relativity theory, dependant on its velocity relative to the observer.

Gravitational potential energy: dependant on the distance between two objects, which is itself dependant on the velocity of the observer.

Chemical potential energy: representative of the relative positions of collections of protons, neutrons and electrons as they interact through photon transmission.

and so on.

 

I hope you do not think I have presented an argument for the nonexistence of God, merely alternate possibilities to the suggested reasoning for the existence of God. For further information on the mathematical intricacies of space-time theories I mentioned, I recommend Flatterland by Ian Stewart.


Yiab
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote: Are you

Chukwu wrote:
Are you afraid that your whole world view is built upon at best an inconsistency and at worst a contradiction?

 

Wow, I simply had to respond to this. As "inconsistency" and "contradiction" are both logical terms, I feel that I should address them within the field of logic. In logic, they are synonymous, so you have just suggested that the best and worse cases are identical. 


MrRage
Posts: 892
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Great post, Yiab. Extra

Great post, Yiab. Extra bonus points for mentioning manifolds. Smiling

Yiab wrote:
This is simply a temporal version of Xeno's paradox. Calculus clearly solves this by allowing us to have ever-shrinking times between consecutive events, converging to a point which is a finite distance in the past.

This was what I was thinking when I asked earlier, "Could time not stretch back infinitely, but there still be an infinite casual chain?" At the time I was going to mention the Poincaré hyperbolic disk as an example, but I thought that would be overkill. But, Xeno's paradox works.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Yiab wrote: Chukwu

Yiab wrote:
Chukwu wrote:
1. There is a cause for every effect.

Please define these terms "cause" and "effect" down to the quantum level. Every time I have tried to do so, I come to the conclusion that cause and effect are useful distinctions only on the macroscopic level and, as such, have no place in discussions surrounding the time when the universe was less than a dozen Planck times old.

If you do not believe that quantum-level definitions of cause and effect are necessary, remember that all the matter in our galaxy was squashed into less than 1 cubic Planck length after the beginning of the universe so quantum effects definitely come into play.

Exactly. Cause and effect are terms that make sense on a macroscopic level. To try to take this concept from classical physics to a level where classical physics breaks down (quantum mechanics, big bang) doesn't make much sense.

Very very simplified, I think of quantum mechanics as nature's way of saying "shit happens". An example would be to consider a radioactive nucleus just sitting somewhere minding its own business. It will decay and throw out a particle, without anything poking it in any way. You don't even know when, the best you can do is give a probability. No "cause" needed.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chukwu wrote:todangst

Chukwu wrote:
todangst wrote:
Chukwu wrote:

1.Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

Again, you're CONTRADICTING YOURSELF! If your hold that 'time stretches back INFINITELY', AS A DILEMMA then this requires you to hold that there is a starting point, and infinite amount of time ago, that has been traversed.

Otherwise, there is no dilemma. None. Zero.


 

Common atheists, anyone with a trivial understanding of logic can see this is just plain wrong... Well, Im not letting you get away with this...

Actually, there's nothing for me to 'get away with', it is you that is making the error.

I will point it out again. 

Quote:

 #1 - A contradiction is of the form A & -A

#2 - My statement is thus: Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

Again, your error is this: if it stretches back infinitely, then there is no starting point. So it can't 'stretch back to infinity'

It can only be a potential infinity.

So what you really mean to say is that 'either there is a starting point, or there isn't.

If there is no starting point, then time DOESN'T stretch back into infinity.. instead, its a potential infinity. 

 So there is no 'infinite regress' problem, in fact Hawking's own model for the universe involves an infinite regress that is solved by a finite but boundless model. 

 

Quote:

#3 - Any old dick can see this is of the form A ∨ -A

And again, this is a false dichotomy, as I show below.

 

Quote:

#1 - Either time streches back infinitely or it doesn't.

Here is you error. What you mean to say is that either there is a starting point, or there ISN'T.

If there is no starting point, then you can't say it stretches back to infinity... if it has no starting point, you can only say it is a potential infinity. And there's no impossibility of a potential infinity.

Quote:

Time streches back infinitely (A)

TIme does NOT strech back infintely (-A)

Actually, this is wrong. What you should say is that there is either a starting point, or there isn't... if there isn't a starting point, then  you can't say it 'stretches back infinitely...." because for it  to stretch infinitely would require that it traversed an infinite amount of tiem, which in turns requires a starting point!

So you can only say it's a potential infinity.

 This is your error.

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'