Originally posted by Rational Gaze
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Why think God caused the universe to exist?
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by JimL; 08-08-2015, 07:17 PM.
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostI want to understand those questions, not some kind of esoteric metaphysics.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostDoesn't answer any problems in cosmology at all. What is the inflaton fields nature if inflation is correct? What does dark matter consist of? Is string theory correct and if it is, what are the extra dimensions and their nature? What is the true fate of the universe? What is beyond the Standard Models of particle physics and cosmology?
I want to understand those questions, not some kind of esoteric metaphysics.
Question one: What if what we think we see as the "big bang" is really our observing this universe coming to an end as we see it in the distant past? What is it we observe which must disallow this?
The second question: Involves an existing, yet not satisfactorily proven theory. That the dark matter is really the effect of gravitational relativity. The wording of the question on this, I'm not sure how to word this into a proper question in this regard.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWell, While I personally am persuaded regarding the origin of our universe. Two questions you pose. I have not answers but two questions which just might be an answer.
Question one: What if what we think we see as the "big bang" is really our observing this universe coming to an end as we see it in the distant past? What is it we observe which must disallow this?
The second question: Involves an existing, yet not satisfactorily proven theory. That the dark matter is really the effect of gravitational relativity. The wording of the question on this, I'm not sure how to word this into a proper question in this regard.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rational Gaze View PostNo, I didn't. I neatly refuted your flimsy justification.
Except there is no a priori reason for thinking that a timeless cause cannot causally precede a temporal effect. You're simply begging the question.
A fallacy of composition and another example of begging the question. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but two fallacious arguments don't make a sound one.
Second, your special pleading. You're more than willing to apply science to things within the universe to the entire universe when you think it suits your position, yet you cry fallacy of composition when it doesn't suit your purposes. Pure special pleading on your part.
Aside from being a massive non sequitur, this is simply an unjustifiable bare assertion,
and one that patently begs the question against the possibility of a timeless cause causally preceding a temporal effect.Last edited by Jichard; 08-09-2015, 12:08 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rational Gaze View PostExcept it isn't. Because there is no justification for the claim that some thing x can only cause some thing y if and only if x is temporally prior to y. For we can conceive of things existing timelessly causally prior but not temporally prior to something. So, your claim "If C causes E, then C temporally precedes E" patently begs the question."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostCan you give an example of something which is causally prior but not temporally prior to its effect?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThe trajectory of tachyons? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostThe Kalam Cosmological Argument (at least as it is presented by Dr. William Lane Craig) presumes that retro-causality is not valid, due to its reliance on the A-Theory of Time, so I don't think this is a very good example if intended to support the premises of the KCA.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostCan you give an example of something which is causally prior but not temporally prior to its effect?
"Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation; to borrow an example from Kant, a heavy ball's resting on a cushion being the cause of a depression in that cushion."
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creat...#ixzz3iPpnoDf4Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWouldn't this qualify?
If we were to take the looser, relational sense of causality which Kant describes, then Dr. Craig's assertions that the "cause" of the universe needs to be timeless and immaterial do not follow, and the KCA still fails to lead where Dr. Craig intends."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostI do not agree with Dr. Craig that it does. At least, not in the Aristotelian sense of causation which Dr. Craig promotes. Aristotelian causation is a description of temporal change, and loses coherence when this temporality is removed. The heavy ball can only be said to have been the Aristotelian cause of the depression, in this scenario, if there was first a time in which the cushion had no depression, followed by a time in which placing the ball on the cushion led to a depression forming. If the cushion and ball had existed together, for all time, with the depression always present, then the depression was not caused.
If we were to take the looser, relational sense of causality which Kant describes, then Dr. Craig's assertions that the "cause" of the universe needs to be timeless and immaterial do not follow, and the KCA still fails to lead where Dr. Craig intends.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not sure about that. Even if the depression existed for eternity past, the cause would still be the heavy ball. No ball no depression. The depression is still dependent on the ball. The ball is not dependent on the depression.
I'm not sure about that, he does give more reasons in the link for his views."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostThe depression did not come into existence because of the ball, in such a scenario. Whether the depression is dependent upon the ball is irrelevant to whether the ball is the Aristotelian cause of the depression.
I must not be seeing what you are seeing. To which reasons are you referring?
But why think that such a cause exists at all? Very simply, the causal inference is based in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of absolutely nothing. A pure potentiality cannot actualize itself. In the case of the universe (including any boundary points), there was not anything physically prior to the initial singularity.4 The potentiality for the existence of the universe could not therefore have lain in itself, since it did not exist prior to the singularity. On the theistic hypothesis, the potentiality of the universe's existence lay in the power of God to create it. On the atheistic hypothesis, there did not even exist the potentiality for the existence of the universe. But then it seems inconceivable that the universe should become actual if there did not exist any potentiality for its existence. It seems to me therefore that a little reflection leads us to the conclusion that the origin of the universe had a cause.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
102 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
393 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
161 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
126 responses
684 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:12 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
252 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment