God, Logic, And Reason.

[Nihil Obstat]

You were not simply discussing the "wrong one". What you have been talking about is not a cosmological argument at all. That indicates to me that no, you have not done your homework.
It would be like if we were talking about wild cats and I insisted that wolves are the most effective predatory cats.

[stevil]

You were not simply discussing the "wrong one". What you have been talking about is not a cosmological argument at all. That indicates to me that no, you have not done your homework.
It would be like if we were talking about wild cats and I insisted that wolves are the most effective predatory cats.

You didn't state that before.
We were talking about the cosmological arguments. The necessity for a prime mover or a first cause.
The assumption that energy/matter requires a first cause. The assumption that energy/matter is contingent.
The assumption that a god is not contingent and that it exists.
These are false assumptions and cannot be derived because we don't know that energy/matter is contingent.
If you can prove that energy is contingent then we can continue with the Cosmonlogical argument. If you cannot, then the Cosmological argument fails based on the "Begs the question" logical fallicy.

[Nihil Obstat]

As I said, there is nothing left that I can even discuss. It is simply an exercise in futility.

[stevil]

As I said, there is nothing left that I can even discuss. It is simply an exercise in futility.

Absolutely, if you can't be bothered discussing.

[Nihil Obstat]

Do let me know when you understand the arguments you claim to have all figured out.

[stevil]

Do let me know when you understand the arguments you claim to have all figured out.

Do let me know when you are capable of having a discussion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

welll they say the begenning of the universe was just quantum and pre matter, pre particles.

im beginning to question whether a first cause as un uncaused cause, can really be established

[4588686]

Cats

Edited February 16, 2013 by Hasan

[dairygirl4u2c]

i had for years said God couldnt be proven. then for the last eight or so months tended to say he could.

i thight the uncaused cause could be demonstrated as at least most probable. my big change in thinkng was thermodynamics, that energy is going to zero in our universe as we understand it. that means there was no infinite beginning, never ending chain or ticking time bomb of matter etc. for if there was, itd have an infinite beinning but not an infinite end. that means there must be a beginning.

even a ticking time bomb of matter wouldnt be possible cause itd have to be something that always existed, an infinite chain of matter/energy even if it was self contained, teh first cue stick if u will.

 

what i had thought though was if there was a primordial soup of quantum that just explodes like a ticking time bomb then we couldnt prove an uncaused cause as we dont know enogh about quantum. but i had for got that science actually said that that's how teh unverse began, as quantum. so i think im reverting to God cannot be proven.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

 

this argument to me is very much science driven.

 

when we or i learn more of quantum, then ill tweak my views if necessary

 

i dont know how thermodynamics works with quantum

Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

that link says matter will turn into quantum, and it's unknown if the universe will meeet thermodynamic equiliirum.

that means we just dont know enoguh.

 

i dont think we can say uncaused cause of quantum can be established, if we could argue it always existed as a never ending chain.

 

i know catholic theologians say an infinte chain is self caused a fortiori, and so God or uncaused case. but i see that as a cop out. if God can just be an inifinite chain can be

 

if we could say thermodynamics wroks in quantum though, id say there's no infinite beginning as there's no ininite end. and then id say God culd be proven. so maybe i cold say i tend to saying he can be. but its quite a jump to assume more likely yhan not that it works that way

Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is the thread where i started out three years ago arguning he couldnt be proven. then last summer said he could at end of thread.

now im saying, no again.

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/96494-gods-existence/

 

 i mean i might say proven as in more likely than not thermodynamis works in quatum. but i could see arguig we dont know enough, too. it's pushing it

Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i see others have used thermodynamics entropy etc to prove God

 

http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence

 

http://www.sciforums.com/Entropy-and-Causality-used-as-a-proof-for-God-s-existence-t-18366.html

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22God%27s+existence%22+thermodynamics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=TJ7&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=%22God%27s+existence%22+thermodynamics+entropy+beginning&sa=X&ei=Sr0fUdD2CYaHygGrnoD4DQ&ved=0CCwQ7xYoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42553238,d.aWc&fp=6a53cf30761535b7&biw=1280&bih=604

 

i just make point that thermo dont necessarily work in quantum

Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[stevil]

welll they say the begenning of the universe was just quantum and pre matter, pre particles.
im beginning to question whether a first cause as un uncaused cause, can really be established

The statement that "the universe began to exist" is a very simple sentence that describes a very complex thing.
In the cosmological argument they define the universe as being all material existence.
Science often talks about the universe as being the result of the big bang. In science there are theories that there might be a multiverse, possibly even an infinite amount of universes.

For the Cosmological argument to come to a conclusion "out of necessity" it must prove that all other possibilities are impossible.
It must prove that a multiverse is impossible.
It must prove that energy is contingent.
It must prove that the quantum vacuum is contingent.
It must prove that nothing existed prior to the big bang. (Science only claims to know what happened after the big bang began).

Quite simply put, there are too many unknowns for the Cosmological argument to conclude anything "out of necessity".
I really do feel that it is futile to try and prove or disprove gods. One simply needs either faith and belief or lack of faith and lack of believe to maintain their chosen world view.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it might not be proven in final terms, but much can be said in terms of probability, based on the way things are, just what we see. what we see is "more likely than not" (more than 50%) the case.
it maybe iductive logic and not deductive but it's still logic and stiill arguable "proven"

 

for example, there might be a multiverse, but based on what we can tell, that isn't the case.

the uiverse might be a expaning and collapsing system but as that link says thats liklely not the case. we're heading towards entropy and breakdown.

there mightve been something before the big bang but as far as we can tell there wasnt

 

what do you mean by contingent? i see you argue that a lot

Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i domt like saying we can prove God cause i dont know if thermodynamics works at quantum level.

 

but that aside, id say we could meaningful prove God if we cold say that about thermodynamics

it's a supernaural, unknown, and uncaused cause.

 

if all we proved by analogy is a self existing cue stick hit balls that's not much but at least it's an uncaused cause and could be called God if that floated ur boat.

that how this cue stick exists is unknown how it just exists etc helps justify calling it God but still some hesitancy calling it God.

but the thing that seems to really justify calling it God is that the causation is supernatural. thermodynamics would say a cue stick can't just exist infinitely at from the beginning end... itd have to have a definite beginning. and if that's the case, it's supernatural how a cue stick would knock the balls, cause it must be acting according to laws that are not natural, supernatural.

by analogy itd be like seeing a bike rolling, concluding when and where it began, but also proving that there was nothing that could have caused it according to the laws of our nature. analogy could argue it's just somethinmg we dont know yet and part of nature.... but it seems to be pointing to something that is beyond natural laws.
i know, usually when people say something is supernatural it's really just not understood yet and part of nature.... but that doesnt always have to be the case, and we could argue te science points that way too. dare i say, establishes it?

Edited February 16, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's like a bike is in a room. no one is in there and theres no way to get in. no one sees it pushed but we see it roling out and conclude when and where in the room it came from and that nothing of this nature could have caused it. the laws of nature are violated... ?

[Groo the Wanderer]

on our last day, we will each know for sure, huh?  might wanna be prepared.  just sayin...

[stevil]

it might not be proven in final terms, but much can be said in terms of probability, based on the way things are, just what we see. what we see is "more likely than not" (more than 50%) the case.
it maybe iductive logic and not deductive but it's still logic and stiill arguable "proven"
 
for example, there might be a multiverse, but based on what we can tell, that isn't the case.
the uiverse might be a expaning and collapsing system but as that link says thats liklely not the case. we're heading towards entropy and breakdown.
there mightve been something before the big bang but as far as we can tell there wasnt
 
what do you mean by contingent? i see you argue that a lot

With regards to the multiverse, there is no evidence for or against. We can't simply say "based on what we can tell, that isn't the case". What we can say is that we haven't seen any evidence for a multiverse.
the reason for this is because we can only see things from which light has travelled towards us. Light has a limited speed. Space is so massive that there are many things of which light hasn't travelled to us yet. When we look at distant stars we are seeing the past (many years into the past, from 5 years to 13 billion years into the past). Thus far we can only see stuff that is inside our universe. But if atheism is correct, it is rather awkard that there would be only one universe. Unique one-off events don't happen in a reality that is autonomous.

Yes, I think an ever expanding/shrinking cycle of the universe has been discredited.

With regards to did anything exist prior to the big bang, we can't say "as far as we can tell there wasnt". We simply do not know the answer.

For a theory to derive an answer from a position of necessity, it must have irrefutable answers to these unknowns, otherwise it can't claim "necessity"

With regards to "contingent" this word comes up in William Lane Craig's cosmological argument. In this context contingent means:
"contingent things are caused to exist by something else"
Thus they have a beginning. They weren't always in existence.
The argument is that god (and only god) is non contingent and can cause contingent things to exist. And the argument is that energy/matter (hence material existence) is contingent. Edited February 17, 2013 by stevil

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont try to make argumeents out of necessitty. if that's your standard of proof, that's your perogative. all i have to show in my mind is that nature is what it seems as best we can tell.

to quantify it i say more likel than not. but it's more than that.... it's the best information we have, it's the theory we have. as far as we can tel, it's truth.

 

"With regards to the multiverse, there is no evidence for or against. We
can't simply say "based on what we can tell, that isn't the case". What
we can say is that we haven't seen any evidence for a multiverse.............Thus far we
can only see stuff that is inside our universe. But if atheism is
correct, it is rather awkard that there would be only one universe.
Unique one-off events don't happen in a reality that is autonomous."

 

if u say theres nothing for or against it..... why assume for it? if we look around we assume it's not.... cause that's how it appears. id argue theres evidence against te multiverse in that it's just assuming something w out basis, yet we have a basis to think we are a part of a sinugluar system... that's what it looks like.for exampel, it was very reasonable for people to assume the earth was flat. evidence came along to prove it wrong. i agree... evidence might cime alomg to say otherwise per multi verse, but i dont see it yet.
at best i see a speculation that "Unique one-off events don't happen in a reality that is autonomous."
there might be something to this but it's too vague and such to mean much. it'd be like pointing out that the sun is round and cmes up and down.... doesthat mean it lands on the ground or some how mean it goes around the earth etc etc? there's some theories but not enough to discredit a flat earth. (maybe a bad example given te earth isnt flat

Edited February 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Unique one-off events don't happen in a reality that is autonomous."

 

i think i might best translate this as "uncaused causes dont just occur as far we can tell." this is true. but big bang makes it look like there was a defiite beginning, and thermodynamics too. plus the idea of an infinite regress doesnt square w our reality cause infinity in that regard is just incomprehensible.

i might say an infinite regress is something we dont see everyday almost just as much as an uncaused cause is.

eg... the earth is flat. how have i proven the earth is flat? i look around. is it out of necessity? no, but that doesnt mean we cant argue it and accept it as proof... or even proven... as best we can tell.

Edited February 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c