Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
New member question about philosophy
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostPerceived likelihood is the only way to make the decision of what is self-existent. No objective evidence is available. The same perceived likelihood is what makes self-existence universe folks, lean to that option.
I don't.
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostI agree that we don't know is not a reason to say God did it. However, I see the same dynamic at work with people like Jim saying in effect, "Since you can not prove scientifically that there is a God, that means that God did not do it."The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostCould be, don't know all theistic positions, but if they don't believe that an immaterial or supernatural existent created the material or natural world then the only alternative I can see is Pantheism. If your argument is that there are 2 necessary existences, then I would argue that there are 2 gods, and the very idea that there are 2 gods is a contradiction on its face. I know you've said that the B'hai preaches that the material world is a reflection of god or something like that, but that doesn't make any sense to me.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-04-2018, 07:25 PM.
Comment
-
A "self-existent universe" is not a viable idea. William Lane Craig really put this idea to bed. A self-existent universe would require an infinite regression of causes to reach the present. An infinite regression of finite events is inherently illogical and therefore impossible. As the Bible points out, God's existence is self-evident and people pretend not to understand why because they find His existence annoying.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostA "self-existent universe" is not a viable idea. William Lane Craig really put this idea to bed. A self-existent universe would require an infinite regression of causes to reach the present. An infinite regression of finite events is inherently illogical and therefore impossible. As the Bible points out, God's existence is self-evident and people pretend not to understand why because they find His existence annoying.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostA "self-existent universe" is not a viable idea. William Lane Craig really put this idea to bed. A self-existent universe would require an infinite regression of causes to reach the present. An infinite regression of finite events is inherently illogical and therefore impossible. As the Bible points out, God's existence is self-evident and people pretend not to understand why because they find His existence annoying.
In a nutshell, there are several problems with the argument. First, while the argument is sound, the premises ar enot necessarily true so it cannot be shown to be valid. Second, Craig (and others) make a fourth leap not supported by the argument: that the cause of the universe (which is defined, for this discussion, as the sum total of energy/matter/time/space associated with the so-called "Big Bang") is necessarily god (or a god).The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI presume you're referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Craig's defense of it? There is a good response to this here.
In a nutshell, there are several problems with the argument. First, while the argument is sound, the premises ar enot necessarily true so it cannot be shown to be valid. Second, Craig (and others) make a fourth leap not supported by the argument: that the cause of the universe (which is defined, for this discussion, as the sum total of energy/matter/time/space associated with the so-called "Big Bang") is necessarily god (or a god).Last edited by 37818; 03-05-2018, 09:53 AM.. . . 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 PostThe two assumptions the KCA makes: 1) An infinite series of causes to be impossible. 2) The then necessary first cause, uncaused cause to have the identity of God.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYes to the former (though it is not clear that case can be made). The 2nd part is not actually part of the KCA. It is a fourth step taken by most. By itself, all the KCA does is show (if the premises are true), that the Universe had to have a cause. It does not identify that cause.
The argument is so used to claim an identity for God as the uncaused Cause.
Now there is a forgotten presumption - uncaused existence which would have to be in order to have either and infinite series of causes with no first cause or to have an uncaused first cause. Uncaused existence is primary. Now unless this necessary being is presumed to be the Being there is no God.. . . 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 shunyadragon View PostGod never intended to make sense to you nor appeal to the logic and reasoning of any mortal. To do this would a contradiction to the existence of God. It is simply a fact of belief that there is only one 'Source' some call Gods, and our physical Creation is the eternal reflection of the attributes of God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostYes.
The argument is so used to claim an identity for God as the uncaused Cause.
Now there is a forgotten presumption - uncaused existence which would have to be in order to have either and infinite series of causes with no first cause or to have an uncaused first cause. Uncaused existence is primary. Now unless this necessary being is presumed to be the Being there is no God.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI presume you're referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Craig's defense of it? There is a good response to this here.
In a nutshell, there are several problems with the argument. First, while the argument is sound, the premises ar enot necessarily true so it cannot be shown to be valid. Second, Craig (and others) make a fourth leap not supported by the argument: that the cause of the universe (which is defined, for this discussion, as the sum total of energy/matter/time/space associated with the so-called "Big Bang") is necessarily god (or a god).
So the reason the argument proves the God of the Bible rather than any other god is because the Cause must be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immaterial and personal. In other words, He must be perfect. The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't perfect.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThe two assumptions the KCA makes: 1) An infinite series of causes to be impossible. 2) The then necessary first cause, uncaused cause to have the identity of God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThe two assumptions the KCA makes: 1) An infinite series of causes to be impossible. 2) The then necessary first cause, uncaused cause to have the identity of God.
(2) The physical existence is possibly uncaused in and of itself as possibly eternal. and natural laws are possibly eternal.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThat's not a fact shunya, that's a belief. That some call the source of our physical existence god means nothing, it's no different than saying that some call the source of our physical existence peanut butter, and that our physical existence is a reflection of peanut butter.
Reread and respond coherently.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment