An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

Explain how [give the logic] the cosmos governed by Natural Law constitute uncaused self-existence.

It is objectively apparent that Natural Law governs everything we have been able to test and observe in our universe. There is no observed cause of anything by another source. If there is no other cause then our physical existence is caused by Natural Law. It would not be uncaused if Natural Law is the cause.

Please explain how there is not to be any distinction between cosmos and existence, and the things which do exist, that is, the things which do cosmos.

?Things do not do cosmos? Things exist within the cosmos. If the (greater) cosmos is all that exists it equivalent to" all of existence.

Possibly more tomorrow on this

[seer]

It is objectively apparent that Natural Law governs everything we have been able to test and observe in our universe. There is no observed cause of anything by another source. If there is no other cause then our physical existence is caused by Natural Law. It would not be uncaused if Natural Law is the cause.

Yet Shuny, you believe that God is the cause of the universe. That matter and energy do not, can not, exist on their own. And it doesn't matter what we can or can not observe - only what is true. After all our knowledge is quite limited.

[shunyadragon]

Yet Shuny, you believe that God is the cause of the universe. That matter and energy do not, can not, exist on their own. And it doesn't matter what we can or can not observe - only what is true. After all our knowledge is quite limited.

A separate argument. It was not a question as to whether or not I believe in God. The question was whether the universe could be self-existent and caused by natural law. The answer is yes. From the human perspective the appearance of an infinite 'existence' caused by natural law and God does not exist would not be any different from an observed 'existence' caused by God using natural law. The physical evidence of our 'existence' is neutral to the argument whether God(s) exist or not.

It remains unknown as to whether our physical existence is infinite and eternal nor finite and temporal from the human perspective.

[seer]

A separate argument. It was not a question as to whether or not I believe in God. The question was whether the universe could be self-existent and caused by natural law. The answer is yes. From the human perspective the appearance of an infinite 'existence' caused by natural law and God does not exist would not be any different from an observed 'existence' caused by God using natural law. The physical evidence of our 'existence' is neutral to the argument whether God(s) exist or not.

It remains unknown as to whether our physical existence is infinite and eternal nor finite and temporal from the human perspective.

That is nonsense Shuny, the human perspective is meaningless since it is limited and often inaccurate. The only thing that matters is what is true - and neither you or I believe that matter/energy are self-existent, nor can they be because they depend on God for said existence.

[shunyadragon]

That is nonsense Shuny, the human perspective is meaningless since it is limited and often inaccurate. The only thing that matters is what is true - and neither you or I believe that matter/energy are self-existent, nor can they be because they depend on God for said existence.

Seer, I am responding objectively to the question, and not based on my belief. If the human perspective is meaningless then everything you believe in is meaningless. It works very well in science and in everyday life. It just is not capable of comprehending definitively absolutes of neither in nature nor the Divine.

[seer]

Seer, I am responding objectively to the question, and not based on my belief. If the human perspective is meaningless then everything you believe in is meaningless. It works very well in science and in everyday life. It just is not capable of comprehending definitively absolutes of neither in nature nor the Divine.

Again nonsense. We have no conclusive evidence that matter and energy are eternal. And your belief Shuny is either true or it isn't no matter what our human perspective. Because our perspective is severely limited and often inaccurate.

[shunyadragon]

Again nonsense. We have no conclusive evidence that matter and energy are eternal.

We have no conclusive evidence either way as I stated before.

[seer]

We have no conclusive evidence either way as I stated before.

But again that is not the point. Either matter/energy depend on God for their existence or they don't. Human perspective is severely limited and often inaccurate so we can not use that as our standard.

[shunyadragon]

But again that is not the point. Either matter/energy depend on God for their existence or they don't. Human perspective is severely limited and often inaccurate so we can not use that as our standard.

Seer - This was never the issue. Though if the human perspective is so severely limited we have no perspective for anything.

[seer]

Seer - This was never the issue. Though if the human perspective is so severely limited we have no perspective for anything.

I never said that, but when it comes to this issue our human perspective is false because according to both you and me matter and energy are not self existent. Our human perspective fails to discover the truth.

[shunyadragon]

I never said that, but when it comes to this issue our human perspective is false because according to both you and me matter and energy are not self existent. Our human perspective fails to discover the truth.

You are talking about belief in the nature of God as the 'Source,' not the nature of the evidence as it is often over stated and abused by those with a religious agenda like Craig. Our human perspective can never comprehend the absolute truth in either the Natural world nor the Divine despite the claims of many theists.
'
You did say that!!!!

Human perspective is severely limited and often inaccurate so we can not use that as our standard.

This cuts ALL ways if you believe this including the nature of your own beliefs.

[seer]

You are talking about belief in the nature of God as the 'Source,' not the nature of the evidence as it is often over stated and abused by those with a religious agenda like Craig. Our human perspective can never comprehend the absolute truth in either the Natural world nor the Divine despite the claims of many theists.

Stop picking on Craig, you are becoming a broken record. But what do you disagree with Shuny? Do you disagree with your own faith that matter/energy are not self-existent and are depended on God? If no, then our "human perspective" is wrong if it comes to a different conclusion.

You did say that!!!!

This cuts ALL ways if you believe this including the nature of your own beliefs.

You completely missed the point. If God revealed a truth to us then it is neither limited or inaccurate. He would be the only Being that could know all things perfectly. And we both believe that revelation is a fact.

[shunyadragon]

Stop picking on Craig, you are becoming a broken record. But what do you disagree with Shuny? Do you disagree with your own faith that matter/energy are not self-existent and are depended on God? If no, then our "human perspective" is wrong if it comes to a different conclusion.

I will never stop picking on the amateur astrologer Craig for his abuse and misuse of science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I disagree that the physical evidence of science can be used in an argument for or against the existence of a 'Source' some call God(s).

You completely missed the point.

I quoted you accurately and specifically.

If God revealed a truth to us then it is neither limited or inaccurate. He would be the only Being that could know all things perfectly. And we both believe that revelation is a fact.

Yes, IF, but the discussion is what is possible from the perspective of the objective evidence and theories of science, and not from the perspective of religious beliefs. Methodological Naturalism remains neutral on these issues, and I will continue to deal with it in light.

[seer]

Yes, IF, but the discussion is what is possible from the perspective of the objective evidence and theories of science, and not from the perspective of religious beliefs. Methodological Naturalism remains neutral on these issues, and I will continue to deal with it in light.

But if methodological naturalism leads to the conclusion that matter/energy are self-existent then that conclusion would be false - agreed?

[shunyadragon]

But if methodological naturalism leads to the conclusion that matter/energy are self-existent then that conclusion would be false - agreed?

The present theories and concepts of Quantum Theory, Quantum, States, Quantum Gravity show no dependence nor self-existent nature on the existence of the Quantum states outside our physical existence. It would be likely impossible to determine anything beyond this in science. Since science through Methodological Naturalism can only determine the physical nature of Quantum States.