Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from me.
Now to the topic of this thread:
One of the favorite arguments of the Christian apologist William Lane Craig is the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. It is a more sophisticated version of the Cosmological Argument taking its name from a form of dialectical argument used in Islamic philosophy. It is used today by apologists because it avoids some of the pitfalls of the original Cosmological Argument. It is stated in the following way:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
(5) God exists.
There are a couple of assumptions here I think. Firstly, how do we know that the cosmos had a beginning?(Prof. Stephen Hawking has hypothesized a possibly beginningless cosmos.)
And secondly, even if the cosmos had a beginning, does this necessarily mean that that beginning had to have been a supernatural one?
Basically, the whole argument is asserting that there is only one thing that can possibly have existed eternally, or have been the cause of the cosmos, and simply labeling that thing "God."
I really don't think the Kalam is a very good argument. What do you think?
This is probably the best, "I believe in god, therefore I can come up with an argument in favor" argument I have heard. But I agree with your assessment that it is not a good argument:
This is a reasonable statement. I can agree that there is nothing that comes into being without a cause of some kind. Assuming there is a beginning for the Universe. Assumption number one.
Once again - no argument - there must have been something that caused the existence of the Universe - assuming that you can dispense with the idea that the Universe has always been there - for which there is a good argument. So this is the first assumption repeated.
As above - after making that assumption, this is logical.
Completely lost the plot - how does one come to this massive assumption? Pre-existing faith - that is how.
Once again, the assumption that there is a god somehow proves that there is a god?
Weak logic, too many assumptions and another variation of the "I believe in god and cannot imagine that there is not one, therefore there is and I am right."
This is where the argument loses me as well.
My sentiments exactly. Thanks for your thoughts.
I agreed with you. This is a very weak logic. First of all it is not yet proved that the Universe has a beginning. It is a hypotheses till date.
Secondly, if there is a beginning there is no point in saying that God is the reason. It can be a natural phenomenon.
Thanks for a good argument.
My dear man:
Beginnings are something that men must think in terms of because they cannot comprehend of anything NOT having a beginning. This is because they have a finite mind and that is how I created them.
I did NOT create them to understand everything. If they increase in knowledge, wisdom and understanding, it is because I gave it to them.
I DO NOT dwell inside of time space and motion, that is where YOU live.
The thing created does NOT say to the Creator, "what are you doing?" or "why did you make that like it is?"
Does a child question it's father and demand an answer?
That is laughable and the father would ignore such a questioning.
The child can inquire, but NOT demand to know.
I can hide anything from mankind and who is he that he should find what it is that I hide. I could hide it right in front of him and he could not see it.
You already experience this in the natural realm you live in. You have a saying on earth, "it was right in front of me and I did not see it!!!"
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
And I love my creation. I correct those who I love.
I thought about those arguments and figured for myself that:
1. I insist there probably was a beginning but there doesn't have to be an end.
2. Eternal existence... I just wonder where it would go? I mean, what would the Universe disappear into? From observation being my method for answering the question. I can see that nothing just disappears, it just changes. Yet however small it get's or how ever it seems to just vanish...something tells me it is still here because everything that ever existed or can exist in the Universe will always exist, just maybe not the way it is today.
3. I don't know that the Universe needs a cause to exist, it just does. I tend to view gd not as a deity type of god but more like a pulse in the universe. Like a living Universe even though it doesn't really speak but yet it does.
You can see a quasar pulse and you can see it pulse into the great unknown of the Universe. I figure it all moves together somehow even though all the different things within it seem to take on their own pulse. That and I don't view life as living and breathing but "moving" I suppose would be a good term.
4. Depends on what you think god is. I don't believe it to be like any of those religions that say it is actually a human or a living "breathing" type of god. Unless they equated "breathing" as a pulse of energy perhaps.
5. Therefore, my personal conclusion is that god as generalized by monotheistic religions does not exist but is made up to express things in time when story was the way to communicate.
All in all, I think there is no good argument for the existence of god if the "fundamental" usage of the term continues to be used to describe deities as god instead of the deities messages about their understanding of the Universe.
And from personal understanding. It seems that before Christianity, Islam or whatever other religions there are out there, that they did at one point try to express god as some sort of Universal energy pulse, the "heart" (in other words) of the Universe.
Perhaps it should just be rephrased as "intelligent cause."
So, do you do think that there was an "intelligent cause" to the universe? An intelligence that willed the cosmos into being for some purpose?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument used by Wm. L. Craig is more streamlined than the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. In Craig's, he does not conclude with the existence of God, but rather that the universe was caused. It goes
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
So, Craig's lacks the fourth premise and the conclusion that God exists. Of course, he goes on to argue that the best explanatory cause is the God of the Bible.
The big problem with that argument is the first postulate. It assumes that in order to have a beginning there must be a cause. Actually the big problem with all of this is that we have to start with assumptions because we can't prove anything. Thus you can't test a hypothesis and can't prove or disprove anything.
Incidentally, there is the possibility of God being supernatural. If natural laws exist within creation and express themselves over time, God, being outside creation, can be supernatural. Of course the question then becomes, can God, who exists outside Creation, influence things within creation according to natural law or even against natural law?
There is a much more obvious argument proving a god must exist.
If we define god as that which produced all this then by definition a god must exist, as somehow existence was produced and it couldn't have produced itself.
Now the question is: is that god an intelligent being or a natural process, or something else entirely?
I'd say, due to lack of evidence for a conscious god, and evidence for and no evidence against natural processes the probability is natural process. We don't even know what something else would be, so unless evidence shows us what it might be, there is no point wondering about it much. Though a divine spaghetti monster with meatball eyes is a tempting contender.
"(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God."
Logically this is abysmal. It's a giant leap that doesn't follow. If it said perhaps that cause is a god it would be ok. But then you wouldn't have the dramatic conclusion that god must exist.
There are many other things, processes, that could be the answer.
I can prove god exists with a much easier deductive argument.
We didn't create ourselves.
So if we define god as that which produced/created us, Then there has to be a god by definition.
What it doesn't tell us is what that god is. A being or a natural process.
And it depends on whether you want to call what ever that is: god. Even if it's not a conscious being.
1 - the movement from non-existence to existence has a cause - every event has a cause, but there is several kinds of causes;
2 - it implies here that the universe has a starting existence point, he takes for granted what can merely be a suposition, there isn't a way to test the material truth of this claim, SO:
IF the universe has a begining of its existence THEN it has a cause.
3 - IF the universe has a cause of its existence... how is that cause God??
I think that maybe he tried to present here something similar to the ontological argument based on infinitude - but if so, he completly forgot to mention... and that kind of argument is more or less similar to the following:
IF something infinit has a begining to existence and IF that becoming has a cause THEN the cause for that becoming can only be an infinite cause, so that cause is God
But this is not what he says there... actually it doesn't make any sense
While doing some further research on Kalam, I discovered that the second premise in the argument is often supported by two further arguments. They are stated as follows:
(1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(2) A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
(3) Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
The second argument considers evidence from moderd cosmology.
(1) Evidence from the expanding galaxies in the universe
(2) Evidence from the laws of thermodynamics
A lot of assumption in the first argument if you ask me. How do we know an actual infinite doesn't exist? Isn't God supposed to be infinite? Again, even if there were a first cause, there is no reason to think that it had to be a supernatural cause. Thoughts anyone?
I think that if the space is curved ans the universe as well, it has a beginning and an end, even if we can't grasp it. All curved elements are finite, no matter how big
So, are you saying there is a supernatural cause?
An actual infinite being defined as a beginingless series of events, that an actual infinite does not exist does not preclude the existence of an infinite being who or which is not a series of events.
I think there is an assumption with this argument that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. Certainly it was the beginning of our obervable universe, but not necessarily everything. I think modern cosmology is coming to the conclusion that our observable universe is only a part of a much larger cosmic system (i.e., cosmic inflation). A system that has perhaps existed infinitely into the past and will continue to exist infinitely into the future. There is just too much that we don't yet know about the cosmos.
Even without many worlds theories BB tells us all the energy that now exists was there. So no need for many worlds or inflation. That energy may have been in a different state before the singularity stage.
There are at least three competing theories now that postulate other than singularity. One put forth by Roger Penrose.
But the philosophical point is: were there ever absolutely nothing at all, there would still be absolutely nothing. You can't get something from absolutely nothing
"...all the energy that now exists..."
I contend that this statement treats energy as a sort of substance, rather like in a liquid state. For me, from my understanding, that is erroneous.
Sure, we can speak of 'energy flow,' because the analogous concept helps us appreciate what happens when a force creates a change of position, state or point of view. But energy is in no way 'a substance.'
Maybe this puts us in a quandary, rather like "chicken and the egg." How does force arise? Does it (force) cause difference? Or does difference cause the force?
According to Newton, force causes difference, not the other way around. Of course, Newton wasn't dealing with quantum mechanics, which says it could be the other way around in the subatomic world.
According to Relativity it is. Einstein says matter is created by dense energy slower than light speed, in layman's terms. He also said: "We have been all wrong! What we have called matter is energy, "
It makes sense. All matter has mass and energy. Mass is kinetic energy. E=mc squared.
Photons have no mass. Nothing would were it not for the Higgs field. Mass is due to the energy being slowed to below light speed which allows interaction.
All matter has mass. You can't have it without energy. But energy doesn't need mass. Photons don't, and they are calculated as waves.
Feynman (of QED fame) in his early years was convinced photons were particles. Later he amended that to photons are particles that act like waves and are easier to calculate as such. Near the end he was noted as saying: Photons act like particles, waves, and probability clouds. But they are none of those.
I know it's not easy to wrap your head around how energy can be a thing. But according to all this, it's the source. Energy creates everything we see. There really is nothing but energy.
Thank you - I'm learning.
So this begs the further question: what is the origin of that force? Could it be in any way related to human thought process?
"I think, therefore I Am."
Seems quite unlikely as it existed billions of years before human thought processes. That, however, does not rule out that it is related to alien thought processes...
Wow - that opens the way for a big new film epic, Wilderness! Sci-fi, Sky-high.
Thanks for your reply.
It's a question some physicists have asked. There are some that think consciousness is a quantum event. I'm not so sure about that.
To me, auto response is the precursor to rudimentary awareness, As biology gets more complex, awareness gets more complex, until in humans, due largely to language, it turns into the most complex and dynamic awareness we know of,
Imagine trying to think something through without inner dialogue. You're limited to feelings and images.
No complex concepts. Language lets us explain things to ourselves. More important even than to each other. We translate feeling and emotion in to concepts.
Where would energy come from?
Very pertinent to this thread. As I said, if a state of absolutely nothing ever existed, nothing would exist now. You can't get something from absolutely nothing. Therefore existence is the default.
IIn BB and pretty much any cosmological theory energy is already there. According to thermodynamics it can't be destroyed nor created. So energy in one form or other may well be eternal.
It's an alternative to god. Not conscious except through its creation. But who knows? Perhaps very rudimentary awareness on some level? at some level? I wouldn't care to speculate farther.
Never the less, not a super being who gives a hoot about what we do and is offering us ever lasting life if we give up our will for his because we want to.
All we can do is make models with the facts as we collect them, and do more research. In the mean time, we can't accept models that have no way of being proven on principal. Theories like many worlds are not fact and may never be provable or falsifiable, like gods. So they aren't science.
That is a sort of pantheistic type belief.
I don't think there is any definitive evidence that the cosmos is finite, and even if it was, I don't think that what brought it into being necessarily had to be an intelligent entity of some kind. The question that always comes to my mind is "where did that intelligence come from." I'm certainly open to the possibility that i could be wrong though.
Well I just read that pantheistic link. I guess I am sorta that way. Who knows these days. Really I have taken to identifying myself as an atheist. It's easier then explaining that I am a gnostic, pantheistic atheist. lol and for what reason.
So what are your thoughts on the questions you proposed?
I’ll just make some general comments at this point based on earlier questions or comments.
First, if you truly want a serious discussion, comments impugning the motivations of those that offer the arguments do not advance the discussion. This is because they distract from the relative merit of the claims being made. The most important goal is to assess the premises to find out whether or not they are true or whether or not they provide the best explanation given rival hypotheses.
Second, there is a fundamental difference between the cosmological and ontological arguments. The cosmological argument is a family of arguments that have been offered by philosophers in the past. The most prominent arguments have come from Aquinas and Leibniz. The Kalam has been used by scholars in the great monotheistic religions, but had fallen into disuse. With the successes of the Big Bang Model, it has enjoyed a revival given the implications within the model that the universe began at a specific point in the finite past.
The argument is not like the ontological argument, first offered by St. Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm’s argument was deductive and a priori—“God is by definition the greatest conceivable being…” Such “true by definition” arguments fell out of favor and greater emphasis was given to arguments that appeal to the evidences of the external world (given the rise of modern science) instead of arguments like St. Anselm’s that take no interest in drawing conclusions from evidence gathered from the external world.
Finally, I’ve noted several comments (I’m summarizing) “In his premises he assumes” as if this is not just an observation, but an indictment. All premises have assumptions built into them. A premise is a conclusion that provides the rationale underlying it.
Mercy, mercy, all of this talk about me.
If you believe in me and I exist, then you will have your proper place with me.
If you believe in me and I do not exist, then you will have lived a righteous life and feel great when you die.
If you do not believe in me and I do not exist, then you were right and lived however you wanted and you are just dead and cease to exist because I do not exist. You will also have nobody to tell how right you were either.
If you do not believe in me and I exist, then you have made a tremendously great error and I will miss you very much.
Are you going to post this in every thread?
You are weird !
I will wink at what you said in calling me weird dear man, I am compassionate and kind and I love you, you are made in my image and likeness. Many have said far worse about me and I am slow to anger.
If you should run across any discussions among your fellow mankind that need love, peace, joy, patience, kindness, mercy, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, can you please pray and i will hear it?
I accept that dear man. Of all these little faces on this little box you all have created, I like this one the best
Do you happen to know of anyone that would be interested in love, peace, joy, patience, kindness, mercy, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Perhaps some of your friends?
Oh yes dear man, just a very friendly reminder to you whom I love.
If you do not believe in me and I do not exist, then you were right and lived however you wanted and you are just dead and cease to exist because I do not exist. You will also have nobody to tell how right you were either.
If you do not believe in me and I exist, then you have made a tremendously great error and I will miss you very much.
David, et al - The problem with this and most attempts to reason for the existence of God via cosmology is simply that the cosmology itself is unsound. These venerable arguments are all firmly rooted in 3D Cartesian space and 1D linear time, because that was the limit of human understanding when the arguments were formed.
But such a framework generates its own destructive questions. How could such a universe appear? Answer - it couldn't. Yet it's here, therefore it must have been created, etc. etc. Really these are primary school questions.
We have the mathematics now to describe closed curved space, yet we do not have the ability to visualise it (except by analogy or by equations). That this is true was shown (jokingly) by Mark earlier, asking, about finite curved space, 'what's outside it?' That's a perfect example of holding on to an inappropriate Cartesian model as a kind of 'comfort box' into which everything has to fit. But words like 'outside' and 'beyond' are themselves flawed Cartesian concepts that can't be applied universally.
Even harder to let go is the idea of linear time. If you consider the word 'before' - it has meaning right back as far as the big bang, even though time is less & less linear as you approach the singularity. But just as you can't enclose all space in a Cartesian comfort-box, you also can't hold up a page-a-day calendar to measure round a singularity. 'Before' the big bang means nothing, yet that does not mean everything came from nothing.
We are getting better and better at describing this universe. But the descriptions are beyond common experience. We may never have the full picture. But that's OK. It's the unanswered questions that make life interesting.
That is so, and science has left religion no place to be without distortion.
Cosmology and physics is, for me, not an easy thing to grasp. I try though. I think the obscure nature of cosmology and physics is one reason why the Kalam seems plausible to some because it plays the ignorance people have about cosmology.
Physics was my degree subject many years ago. But though I managed to get through the exams and finish the degree, I knew I was never going to be able to contribute to the body of knowledge. You need to live & breathe mathematics to make any headway nowadays. So I jumped ship into engineering!
Welcome to the discussion.
Actually, I think the logic of Craig's version of the Kalam is sound. However, a sound logical syllogism doesn't always mean that its conclusion will be true.
Take this syllogism or instance:
(1) All people who hate tomatoes, also hate ketchup.
(2) Johhny hates Ketchup.
(3)Therefore, Johnny hates tomatoes.
The above example is much like Craig's argument. In the above example, the logic is sound, but if the premises are questionable, the conclusion may be false. Perhaps it isn't true that all people who hate tomatoes also hate ketchup.
All I'm saying is that the premises in Craig's argument are questionable. The universe (not just our observable universe but the cosmos at large) may in fact be finite, and if so, it may have had a cause; however, these are only assumptions at the present time. I would also be interested to know why the argument is often furthered to include God as the only logical first cause.
The syllogism I offered was supposed to go:
(1) All people who hate tomatoes, also hate ketchup.
(2) Johhny hates tomatoes.
(3)Therefore, Johnny hates ketchup.
Sorry David - the logic there is unsound. It's actually the equivalent of:
all people with red hair have hair
Johnny has hair
Therefore Johnny's hair is red
Clearly untrue, as can be shown easily with Venn diagrams, etc
Yes, I believe you are correct. You have to peek behind the veil of the premises to see what's there.
Craig's Kalam Argument concludes with "therefore the universe has a cause." But outside the syllogism he says that God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe.
As I understand it, it goes like this.
Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence in the finite past. Given the problems of an infinite past (some of which you stated earlier), it is more plausible that the universe came into being a finite time ago.
So, if the universe arrived a finite time ago, then it either came into existence through some agency or it did not. Since all our experiences convey the reality of events having causes, and we don't have the experience of something coming from nothing, it is more plausible that the universe came into being through some agent.
I have more to say but I'll have to do it later.
Our experiences in the universe (cause/effect) may not actually apply to the universe itself. Sure our experiences WITHIN the universe shape our understanding of cause and effect, but the universe itself need not have the same apply to it.
Absolutely, especially in extremis. Extrapolation is always dangerous.
Yes, this is often given as an objection to premise #1 ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause."). Here are some of my initial thoughts that premise #1 is more likely than its negation.
First, premise #1 is not stated as a physical law (like the law of gravity) but is stated as a metaphysical law ("being cannot come from non being").
Second, if someone says, "well, it's still possible," this strikes me as a point of retreat from knowledge and not advancement toward greater knowledge. Yes, "anything's possible" I suppose, but I'm not sure what we know after it's stated. I suppose it's possible that the Oprah Book Club could reprint an unabridged version of War and Peace tomorrow. But what is the likelihood of it occurring?
It seems to me that we do better if we consider the plausible and not the merely "possible." But let's say we go with the "possible." I think what were are left with is this:
"It's possible that being can come from non being even though it contradicts every experience we've ever had and every observation ever made."
Furthermore, I think if we reject premise #1, what we are left with is an actual universe with no potential to bring it into existence (since prior to the initial event, there was nothing). But if there is no potentiality, how then do you get an actual universe?
Finally, some have suggested that to reject premise #1 is to reject the miraculous. However, I believe this to be a distinction without a difference. Both adherents and detractors of premise #1 hold to some nonnatural cause (again, there is nothing prior to the universe. That means "no nature"). But, a rejection of premise #1 is to embrace a reality that is even more fantastical than a miracle. No potentiality, no agency. The universe is just here. Of course, this has led detractors of premise #1 to fall back and say "well, perhaps the universe has always existed" which is what premise #2 is about, namely, that the universe began to exist.
I've heard some suggest that they believe that quantum physics offers a defeater to premise #1 and I'd be interested in those that have that background giving a response to premise #1.
The "something from nothing" formulation is another example of trying to extrapolate the commonplace into the extreme. You have to ask yourself why you think you should be able to do that. Have you come across wave-particle duality? There is nothing remotely like it in our normal world of big, slow masses. Yet electrons have no problem exhibiting it.
I sometimes think it's funny that a few hundred years ago people believed life (e.g. maggots) were spontaneously generated in dead meat, until classical science convinced them otherwise. Nowadays, classical science disallows generation of matter, but modern science allows for it, having observed it happen, and is trying hard to explain it. In other words, you can't refute modern science with populist opinion nowadays, any more than you could all those years ago with the maggots.
The reason why is because we start with what we know and what appears to be observationally true. Even if our assumptions are later shown to be wrong, it's still rational to start with what we observe to be true and to generalize from that point until such generalizations are shown to be unwarranted. What would you have us do: start with what is demonstrably false and extrapolate from there? Whatever conclusions we draw from this inquiry, advancement in knowledge is not going to come from radical skepticism or academic hubris (“you can't refute modern science with populist opinion nowadays”). You have not provided anything from modern science that refutes, or draws into question, premise #1.
If we did not make such assumptions at the initial phase of inquiry, we would never come to know that those distinctions which you have suggested exist. Furthermore, there is no past discovery at any level of observation (at least none that I am aware of) that would suggest that matter can come into existence from nothing.
As I see it, your point only illustrates that we should be agnostic about assuming that behavior at one level of observation will be identical to that of another. But premise #1 has nothing to do with behavior at level of observation #1 being different from #2 so that we should be skeptical about extrapolating from one level of observation to another. Rather, premise #1 addresses a more fundamental question: how is it that anything exists at all, instead of nothing, whether we are observing the macro world or the quantum level?
In the end, you could be correct. Perhaps we lack both the physical and conceptual tools to even address a question like “How did the Universe Come into Being”? But, we'll never know that until we pursue the question. To this point, you have not offered any line of evidence as to why we should believe that the assumption “something can’t come from nothing” (excuse the double negative) applies at only one level of the observational universe but not at another. And until you do that, we are rational to assume that what is true in our experience and observation is true of the universe also.
This leads me to believe that premise #1 is more plausible than its negation.
Being agnostic, in the absence of proof, is far better than jumping to conclusions.
And if you are still bothering about 'how is it that anything exists at all' I guess you've never read Russell's critique of Berkeley? He states, correctly that there is no answer to Berkelean Idealism but that it is a blind alley. There is no point in going there because nothing can be deduced.
I think we're just going to divide on this one, because my sense is that if we had to have incontrovertible proof before we commence our scientific quests, we would have discovered little, including the quantum realm. As for the Russell and Berkley, I don't think it applies because I'm not talking about idealism. We have repeatable observations that events have causes.
But only within our big, slow mass environment. My point exactly. Stop extrapolating the homely to the extreme. There is NO justification for doing so. Learn to live with doubt. Don't fill the unknown with god. Just say I don't know. Only then will you ever try to learn more.
“God”? Premise #1 does not even mention God.
I find that the brakes that you want to put on this line of inquiry are arbitrary. The universe either came into being from nothing or it didn't. The pursuit of an answer to the question is a reasonable one. In pursuit of an answer to the question, I don't need to offer a "justification for my justification" if my response is the best explanation given the available evidence or if I can show that my answer is more probable than its negation. Science does not proceed on incontrovertible, indisputable proof. We go with the best theory we have and then we refine it as we move forward. Capitulating to "just say I don't know" just sounds like cosmology advice from Nancy Reagan.
But at a more basic level, I said earlier that premise #1 is not a scientific principle, it's a metaphysical one and simply states what is obvious, which is that being cannot come from nonbeing. If it were true that things could just pop into existence, uncaused, from nothing, then why doesn't anything or everything happen this way? Note I am not saying that because it is obvious, therefore it's true. However, if it is obvious, we should proceed to believe it as true until some defeater gives us cause to doubt it. You haven't done that. Saying "I don't know" is not the beginning of wisdom.
Also, there is something too "new agey" about this idea that "we can't know" and that we must admit ignorance in order to achieve knowledge. Forums like this are about giving the best answer we have. We don't start with certain knowledge in science and we will never have it. If you don't have an answer, that's fine--just get off the court and stop playing. Stop telling us all that you don’t know.
"[E]xtrapolating the homely to the extreme" doesn't add anything to the discussion. Furthermore it strikes me as an over preoccupation with method and not about the truthfulness of the claim in question. Another way of putting it, you don't seem too interested in the argument itself; you seem to be doing more to act like a methodological policeman, slapping down violators because they have not maintained some preconceived notion you have about methodological purity. Even still another way of saying it, your method appears to be heavily invested in dismissing claims rather than dealing with them.
Finally, the size of the object is irrelevant in answering premise #1. You want to make an exception for the universe….why? I’m not sure. The size of the object in question is irrelevant: whether we're talking about a sphere the size of a basketball or the universe (take your pick on the shape) . Why should the size of the object have any bearing on our inquiry as to how it came into being or whether or not it could have arrived on the scene uncaused?
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." It's either true or not. Anyone interested to coming to terms with the premise will seek to answer the question, not dismiss it.
I know how science proceeds - by imaginative but testable hypotheses which have some credence as possibly true until shown false. Only by saying 'we don't know', can we generate the motivation to find out. It's the people who believe they do know who resist genuine inquiry.Big things like cricket balls and moons certainly don't spring into existence. But at microscopic level there is a constant and observable interchange of mass and energy, and in fact there is not a clear distinction between matter and energy, in the way that there is at macro level. See my post to David above. The BB already contained all the mass-energy of the universe, possibly from a 'previous' universe. In other words, the beginning of our universe need not be seen as the true beginning. Of course I can't tell you what happened 'before' the BB, but let's at least ask scientific questions.That's just silly and you know it. Next?Difficult problems yield to method. And yes, scientific method consists in falsification. So, dismissing claims is important. Also important is distinguishing between testable and untestable claims. (Testable in principle, even if the 'equipment' is not yet available).I've answered that above. See mass-energy interchange. It doesn't happen on a macro scale. Again, another reason why extrapolation is dangerous.I am not dismissing it. I'm answering it. But without recourse to metaphysics.
Great! Then the dispute is closed. God is not real, it is not a being, it is not physical or metaphysical.
Because likewise, non being cannot come from being.
I AM ElElyone and I have questions for you dear man.
Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up now your loins like a man, and I will demand of you, and you declare to Me.
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Declare to Me, if you have and know understanding.
Who determined the measures of the earth, if you know? Or who stretched the measuring line upon it?
Upon what were the foundations of it fastened, or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together and all shouted for joy?
Or who shut up the sea with doors when it broke forth and issued out of the womb?
When I made the clouds the garment of it, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it,
And marked for it My appointed boundary and set bars and doors,
And said, Thus far shall you come and no farther; and here shall your proud waves be stayed?
Have you commanded the morning since your days began and caused the dawn to know its place,
So that light may get hold of the corners of the earth and shake the wickedness of night out of it?
It is changed like clay into which a seal is pressed; and things stand out like a many-colored garment.
From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken.
Have you explored the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Or have you seen the doors of deep darkness?
Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth? Tell Me, if you know it all.
Where is the way where light dwells? And as for darkness, where is its abode,
That you may conduct it to its home, and may know the paths to its house?
You must know, since you were born then! Or because you are so extremely old!
Have you entered the treasuries of the snow, or have you seen the treasuries of the hail,
Which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war?
By what way is the light distributed, or the east wind spread over the earth?
Who has prepared a channel for the torrents of rain, or a path for the thunderbolt,
To cause it to rain on the uninhabited land and on the desert where no man lives,
To satisfy the waste and desolate ground and to cause the tender grass to spring forth?
Has the rain a father? Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
Out of whose womb came the ice? And the hoary frost of heaven, who has given it birth?
The waters are congealed like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
Can you bind the chains of the cluster of stars called Pleiades, or loose the cords of the constellation Orion?
Can you lead forth the signs of the zodiac in their season? Or can you guide the stars of the Bear with her young?
Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule upon the earth?
Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, so that an abundance of waters may cover you?
Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say to you, Here we are?
Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or in the dark clouds? Or who has given understanding to the mind or to the meteor?
Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can pour out the water bottles of the heavens
When heat has caused the dust to run into a mass and the clods to cleave fast together?
Can you hunt the prey for the lion? Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions
When they couch in their dens or lie in wait in their hiding place?
Who provides for the raven its prey when its young ones cry to God and wander about for lack of food?
Answer me if you can oh man.
Are the questions to deep for your understanding?
Can you fathom the answers?
Do they transcend your being?
Are they to much to ponder for you oh mankind?
Do not part of your discussions down here on my footstool involve questions?
Are they to vast for you?
Do I not stoop down to see your sky?
Are these to beyond your comprehension?
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
Which of my messengers at my command, cannot slow down the rate of speed at which he travels, faster than the speed of light (appx. 186,000 miles per second according to the measure of men) and change his appearance, his molecular structure if you will and look like one of mankind so that you do not even know he is my angel while he is eating dinner with you or walking on the road at your side? Or if I tell him to appear in his created form of glory and it not terrify men to fall on they're faces? Him having to appear in your physical realm because he cannot be seen with the eyes of mankind because he is invisible to them.
Which of my angels cannot slay an army of men by himself?
Which one of you mankind does not need air or sleep or food or water lest you die? Which of you can give life?
Who among you has power over the body after it dies?
My servants do not tell me what to do, where to go, what to say or what to write and all mankind are my servants. If I were to write one of these "hubs", the earth could not contain all the paper it would need. All the memory of the worlds computers would not hold my hub. I hold the life of all mankind in my hand. I stoop down to look at the sky, the earth it is my footstool.
I shall wink at you ignorance in calling me a twit oh man, (I see this means FOOL in your tongue) many others have called me far worse, but I realize they do so because the are without understanding of me. Much like a child or teenager hurlers insults at the parents that feed them. These without wisdom think that I answer to them, give an account to them, much like a child questions mother and father. Why? Because they simply do no understand the wisdom of mother and father.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן and slow to anger, rich in mercy and grace towards all mankind and the rest of my creation. I love my creation and long to fellowship with it. I cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
I see you have written that you are what they call an "engineer".
I am the one who gives you the understanding of how to engineer,
I gave you the ability to comprehend the mathematics that are required to engineer.
Where were you when I engineered the foundation of the earth? Declare to Me, if you have and know understanding.
Who determined the measures of the earth, if you know? Or who stretched the measuring line upon it?
Upon what were the foundations of it fastened, or who laid its cornerstone?
And who is it what hangs the earth on nothing?
Who makes sure at all times it does not get to close to the sun and consumed in an instant?
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
Please stop wasting my time with this garbage.
I understand my servant.
My mind is to much to comprehend and you are far to busy trying to figure out things you will never figure out young man.
My ways are beyond any of the ways of man and his finite mind.
I love you and feed you and sustain you.
In me you live, move and have your being.
I am a loving, kind and compassionate creator to all of my servants.
I cause all things to work together and hold the earth in my hand.
I only asked you the questions because you appear to be wise.
So I thought if you would like to know more, I would give you things to ponder. Perhaps they would help you engineer something grand.
Draw near to me and I shall draw near to you young man.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
Why don't you go draw near to a starving child over there in war torn countries instead patronizing people on the forum.
Oh I know because god doesn't give a sh*t about starving helpless children caught up in your f***ing war all because of you while you demand respect from people who will never give it to you because you let children die.
You allow people to kill in your name, you allow suffering and your sitting here preaching love. I have a couple words for god... figure it out. FU
One thing that posters like this reveal is all the excess emotional baggage you and some others are carrying around about religion. At one level, it's comical to watch some of you guys go ballistic when someone starts quoting scripture. It's more entertaining than most stuff on prime time. But at another level, you sour the whole atmosphere. This is a forum on religion; some people express their views about religion in different ways.
I'm sorry you had some bad experiences with religion. Grow up and get a bit more tolerant. As for the emotional baggage, keep it at home. Travel light.
It breaks my heart as well, that many have had bad experiences in the many religions who do evil in my name.
Many things are done "in my name" that have nothing to do with me.
Kind of like the little boy who goes to the local 5 and dime and tells the manager his dad sent him to get candy and to put it on his dad's tab, using his dad's name.
Soon enough, the little boy gets what's coming to him as it does not go unnoticed.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו
This poster is not contributing in any useful way to the discussion but is intent on patronising the genuine contributors. It is just another form of trolling. Besides which, I thought it was reckoned to be blasphemous to impersonate God? Or are you telling me it's really God??
I AM THE GREAT ע ל ע ל י ו ן full of Love and Mercy and Grace:
Impersonate? This is NOT an act as YOU assume dear man. You can avoid the questions but the truth is that......
I can speak to whomever I will, however I will, whenever I will and through whomever I will and mankind can do NOTHING to stop me my servant.
I do NOT stop YOU from speaking, but I could in a moment, the twinkle of an eye. I could take your speech from you, your sight and your hearing as well. I gave them to you and they are mine to take if I will.
But alas, this is NOT done without men scoffing at me until my patience runs out. I could take it and give it back in a few days. Perhaps even then they would NOT believe. That is the hardness of some of mankind.
Like a father has control over his children if they scoff and mock at him, make no mistake, they will learn who is in charge will they NOT?
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן full of love and compassion and I wait patiently for the sons of men to believe that I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
I AM HE
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
Now, that's silly (to coin a phrase). I note that your guns are in full blaze for posters if they are religious ("patronizing twit" was my favorite), yet your tolerance level appears to be higher for others. So don't try to pass this off as if you're the troll monitor, "snuffing out trolling when'er it rears its ugly head." Now that's patronizing (with a "z")!
This is not the Science Forum; it's the Religion Forum. Hard to imagine, I know, but there will probably be religious people in it. Some people express their views about religion differently than others. Get over it. Besides, watching the ElElyon and Boss Shrubb Show is kind of like watching the Animaniacs run across the screen while Pinky and the Brain are trying to take over the world. Consider it a useful diversion to what is otherwise a pedantic and routine event.
What I saw was yet another serious attempt at discussion being hijacked and virtually derailed by an extremely patronising god-impersonator. I have plenty of tolerance and respect for the open minded, whether from religious or irreligious camps. The god-impersonator was a troll. s/he had plenty of opportunities to prove otherwise but didn't take them.
BTW, Epistemology is included in the description of this forum.
This I offer not so much for your benefit as you have stated your position, but for others who might be intimidated by your comments or those who try to shout them down because they don't like their type of religious expression. Posters who choose to express their religious ideas are free to do so and need not be intimidated by self-appointed troll monitors. As long as you are not doing anything immoral, illegal, unethical or fattening, you are permitted to express yourself and engage people as you wish. These self-appointed hum-drums are going to turn the forum into something as joyless and pedantic as they are. And then the forums will only contain people like them (may be that's what they want).
Forum etiquette notwithstanding, there is no prohibition on your mode of religious expression. All etiquette rules on forums yield to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment which is still in the Constitution.
So, don't be shy about expressing your faith in the way you feel led to, limited only by the qualifiers I gave above (I'm not sure about "fattening"). It will make the forums much more interesting and attract more people to them.
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
Hear, hear and HEAR...well said!!!
From my view point, the ratio of the
"HEY YOU!!! SHUT UP AND LEAVE!!!" types.....compared to the
"YOU ARE FREE TO SPEAK" types.
Is about the same as the number of the 1st class people was to the 3rd class people who made it off the Titanic.
I recall men saying "NOT EVEN GOD CAN SINK HER"...a little old lady really did tell them they should NOT have said that.
She was very wise and knew that to start a statement with the phrase....
"NOT EVEN GOD can sink....." Is Not even a good idea.
Kind of like when you try to tell your parents "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" and you are 16 years ignorant.
They did not change their minds on the opinion of the ship as it left.
I AM NOT mocked.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
This will be my last post to this thread (really!) so you (and anyone else) can have the last word on the matter. The readers can make up their own mind....
In summary, a proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is justified in asserting that the universe must have had a cause. The positive evidence is our observation that material objects don’t wink into existence. It is always true in our experience. Yet in the face of this evidence, opponents, in a desire to avoid the possibility of a Creator, will assert that we can’t know for sure that the universe just popped into being, uncaused and therefore we shouldn’t entertain the question.
Yet, opponents have discussed phenomena of expanding and contracting universes as if it were possible, a phenomena that is not nearly as intuitively obvious, knowable, or supportive of the evidence as premise #1. This is support that opponents “pick and choose” what premises they allow for consideration and those they wish to exclude. Because premise #1 sounds too much like “God” to them, they dismiss it by default. This approach is not scientific and is likely to be a blinder to learning other truths about the universe. Frankly, it does not matter what motivations people have when seeking answers to questions about the universe. It’s ironic that atheists often accuse evangelical Christians of stifling inquiry, but my observation has been that the opposite is true and this thread provides the evidence for my claim.
Opponents warn us that we should not extrapolate causes as they pertain to the universe. I have two responses to this. First, the interchange between matter and energy is, by all accounts an interchange of “something” and therefore does not help us with premise #1 which addresses things coming into existence, not things as they already exist, no matter their current or past states. Second, detractors have regularly suggested that we cannot extrapolate from the observational world (called the “big, slow mass environment” by one) to the quantum level of matter and energy. Opponents offer a framework for premise #1 of the observational world v. the quantum world. But, the framework of premise #1 is not about two levels of observation, but rather observations at the same level, that is, the world of physical entities. So, if oceans, trees, and elephants cannot wink into existence, neither can the universe. Opponents want to make the universe an exception to all other physical entities. Again, the exemption is arbitrary. What good reason is there to offer this one exemption (the universe) to all the rest of our observations?
This addresses opponent’s argument that what may be true of things in the universe may not be true of the universe itself. But as I have stated, there is no reason to exempt the universe from all other physical entities. Therefore, we are quite justified in asserting the generalization that if all other physical objects don’t wink into existence, regardless of the size, neither did the universe.
Opponents have said that the Kalam Argument does not prove God’s existence. Exactly. Any reading of the argument would reveal that; God is not even mentioned. The conclusion of the Kalam Argument is that the universe had a cause.
My final point is more popular in content: when confronted with questions about existence, if the best that opponents can do is say “we don’t know whether the universe just winked into existence or not and we should not pursue this question” then I say, let them have this view because there is little that is more absurd than believing that the universe just winked into being, uncaused. As Bill Craig puts it: this view is worse than magic because with magic, you at least have a rabbit and you have a hat. Opponents would have us believe that the universe is predicated on nothing, a belief that is more fantastical than the magical or the miraculous. It take a lot more faith to believe that the universe winked into being than to believe that a timeless, maximally-powerful being created the universe in the beginning.
This is absurd. And a gross misrepresentation of what "opponents" would have you believe.
I think we understand why you are prepared to lie to attempt to make a point - I guess that is what it says to do in the bible?
You fail miserably though.
0/10 for logic
1/10 for inventive lies
3/10 for spelling
8/10 for sesquipedalianism
10/10 for fanaticism
I am often blamed for the evil MEN do, even at times done in my name.
They do not know me, nor I them.
I am use to it as ע ל ע ל י ו often hears this argument on the earth.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו
I dunno Sandra, when I think you have gotten annoyed, you also seem to get more succinct and accurate than most of us! Well said indeed!
My dear man earnestshub:
A few days ago YOU said you were done wasting your time here and that you would NOT return.
Are YOU being double minded again oh man?
Do you NOT do as YOU say?
Do YOU speak vain, idle and empty words and then NOT fulfill them?
When you speak words you should mean it or people will take you for an___________one of those words you all use on the earth.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
And I love you and care for you dear man.
OK, ever thought of greasing your backside and sliding away somewhere where you don't annoy the living crap out of those with enough brain cells working to be totally over your god?
Sprouting this old world flat earth nonsense is boring thinkers to bits! Take your narrow minded crud and soak in it, just leave it off the forums. The God-as third person stuff is arrogant as well as stupid.
I am very tired as I type this, so, don't be surprised if some of it is a little incoherent. I will clarify later if needed when I am better rested.
I think the suggestion that the matter in the universe "came from nothing" at the Big Bang has been dismissed by some based on the mass-energy conservation laws. It has been suggested that the matter and energy comprising our universe has quite possibly always existed in some form or another. I'm not saying that I necessarily hold this view, I really don't know that much about it. I just thought I would add it to the discussion in the hope that someone with more knowledge than I could expound on it a bit more.
Also, there is a phenomenon in quantum field theory known as "vacuum fluctuation." This phenomenon has actually been observed in the laboratory from what I understand. I think Stephen Hawking and others have proposed theories on this subject. Basically, it is proposed that our universe may have emerged out of a vacuum fluctuation. I think this is an aspect of Inflation Theory - currently the predominant theory in cosmology. Can anyone elaborate?
At any rate, it would appear that at the present time, there is insufficient evidence to conclude either way whether the universe had a beginning or not. The argument is a dead-end. However, for the sake of argument, we could move forward with the assumption that the universe had a beginning. What we should discuss now is whether that beginning required intelligent causation. Thoughts anyone?
That's very funny that we have spent all this time on premise #1. And it's the more obvious of the two!
My initial thoughts are that, if we assume that the universe had a beginning, you would need a timeless, changeless agent of incredible power to do it. He would need to be timeless since time came into existence at the beginning. And timelessness implies changelessness. I think that being "supremely power" is obvious.
How odd. That exactly matches what you already believe. And you have all the right words all ready and everything.
What a coincidence.
Now explain exactly why it could not possibly have started with a bang without this divine being that you already know exists?
If we assume...............
You could have made your point much more succinctly had you just said.......
It started when I spoke.
I create by speaking.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
It's generally agreed that our universe is still expanding from the big bang. The expansion is against the gravitational pull towards the centre (where the BB occurred). In time, the expansion may end and a contraction phase begin. Even Classical physics would suggest this. The contraction will take as long as the expansion, and will end in anihilation. But his will not be 'nothing from something', any more than the BB was 'something from nothing'. All the mass-energy of the universe is still there, but located in a single point, or singularity. At the singularity, time as we understand it has no meaning. Does the entire process start over again in a new BB? Possibly. Has this happened over and over again? Possibly. Are multiple instances of it happening simultaneously? Possibly. Will we ever know for sure? Possibly.
I've read a little about the Big Bang/Big Crunch model. I think it has gradually lost its acceptance among cosmologists due to new data indicating that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down but actually speeding up. However, new data and new discoveries in physics may one day vindicate the Big Crunch model.
To answer my own question of whether the cosmos required intelligent causation - if it had a cause at all - I wouldn't say "no", I would say "no evidence." I think the Kalam is in the category of a "God of the Gaps" argument. I'm not saying that we shouldn't explore the question any further. Maybe someone can tell me something I haven't heard before. But until then, "no evidence" is my position.
I'm not sold on the Big Crunch or oscillating universe models either, but I don't think they've been finally debunked yet. There is plenty of evidence of 'little crunches' having occurred within our own universe in the form of Black Holes, so the precedent of contraction to singularity is established.
I agree with your 'no evidence' summation. An intelligent creator has not been found but has not been disproved. I don't at all accept Bibowen's argument that probability is on the side of Creation. That's nothing more than personal opinion.
Scientific American had a rather interesting article postulating the existence of "naked singularities"; if, indeed, they exist it would tell us much about the conditions of the universe prior to the big bang. Unfortunately, I read it in a doctor's office and don't recall the volume number or publication date.
From what I've read and remember, naked singularities can/could occur when the matter collapsing into a black hole has sufficient angular momentum about the centre. This causes it to collapse not to a zero-dimensional (point) but to a one-dimension (line). Still a bit hard to visualise though!
This might be the best track of thought.
Why care about defining what is undifinable by definition ?
he he he.
Isn't "God" a joker word/concept you play when your mind comes upon realizing it's own ignorance ?
if you have to cross a river, some you build a bridge and others will try (for generations) to levitate to the other side.
Intellectual exercice is good.
Specially if you can share a drink with your exercice mates.
The intelligence of a carbon atom that meets 4 hydrogen atoms.
Then, 2 carbon atoms decide to work in team and build a dowline of 6 hydrogen atoms. And so on...
until one day there are very complex carbon molecules that integrate almost all of the existing elements.
Ain't that a formidable achievement ? That is sinergy for you man.
The intelligence of matter expressing itself in the creation of what we call life ?
Since ALL we can say or write about anything isn't but antropomorphism, we can say that the universe is the most powerfull affiliate system never created.
he he he
Juste trying to joke.
I must say you are observant. Crazy as a three dollar note, but observant!
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
And I also do exactly as I say, every time I say it.
My words DO NOT return to me void.
I am glad you are observant in your observation that I am observing everything.
You see, when you are Omnipresent, it comes with the package
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
I love and care for my creation and it grieves me so much that men do that which is evil and destroy the earth and each other and blame me for it. NOT even make take the blame for something others do, do they now?
One thing about the serpent, he did NOT blame anyone for what he did, he just took his lumps and slithered away. I wish men would take responsibility for what they do as well.
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
Oh yes, Earnest I love you too man.
Like others may suggest, you can get tablets for that now.
I'm Sorry to break in to this discussion.
Responding to trolls in any way just encourages them.
I have a challenge for you Earnest.
Are you able to totally resist responding to people like elelyone for a week???
I could try that. The last few times they have just kept growing though.
Good man. It's hard at first but it gets easier, and then after a while they have no effect on you at all, no matter what they say. I'm sure you can do it.
This Kalam argument as many have said assumes too much, in the sense that it jumps to conclusions. The logical support is not there all the way, so why try to establish a logical argument that lacks support half way? Anyway to try to prove a unique super powerful being called God is a good intellectual excercise but a lost battle ... so far.
Since this is a religious forum, just as an informative aside, I wanted to tell you about the Buddhist view on this matter. They believe every universe has a beginning and because it has a beginning it has an end. This end is not a complete anihilation, the remainder stays there as a potentiality and is the cause of the following universe. In this kind of hybrid vision, there is a beginningless something: the process itself. Universes have always been arising, abiding and being destroyed, and same for beings, they are beginningless in the sense that there is a stream of mind that never started and always arises from its previous moment. In the same way that universes arise and get destroyed and arise again, what we call beings are born and die and are reborn following individual beginningless streams of mind, the causation of their rebirth is again the seeds of previous lives.
This vision comes from yogic contemplation. Apparently it does not have a big difference with the prophetic/revelation system of the theistic religions except that any interested individual can be given instructions as to how to get by themselves to the level of yogic contemplation, and thus, to the contemplation of these things by themselves, without the help of an authority, faith is not a requirement.
Bibowen has so grossly misrepresented my views that I see no point in continuing the discussion with him or his god-impersonating friend.
Rosariomontenegro - I agree with your assessment of the lack of logic in the Kalam argument. Also it is interesting what you say about the Buddhist tradition, that knowledge is available through technique, without a leap of faith. (Excuse the oversimplification).
If I were to talk to you like a man, I would say ANYTHING different.
And YOU would still dismiss every question stated in the forum and WHY?
Because YOU have not one single solitary answer man.
Mankind designs millions of things.....but no designer of the universe?
Why don't you just tell me how the earth hangs on NOTHING?
Or why it spins at just the right speed so as NOT to kill everything instantly?
I AM ע ל ע ל י ו ן
Try a bit of science, plenty of ideas and truths there.Why not come out and say what you believe directly. I interpret what you say to mean, "Listen up numbnuts, I know everything, you all know nothing!" Same stuff, just more to the point!
What I post IS...WHAT I know...And what i believe.
Is that NOT what you do?
What kind of a goofy question is that to ask?
I irritate you A LOT man, so why don't you go and do as the oyster does when sand gets inside of it.....do you KNOW what it does?
In case you mistake me for an idiot man, I do write hubs and my score is 90 or better on any given day my dear man.
My IQ...(like who cares) is 187 so I am just shy of a dummy.
Ummm.what is the IQ of a genius?
I am a musical composer, teacher, drummer/percussionist, instructor in 3 fields and blah, blah blah...bloody blabber....so what!!!!
Last time I took a class after taking 17 tests I walked off with and average of 97%....so what!!!
You say that you "have no time to talk to me"....
So go now and either care less or care more dear man.
i live out here in the middle of a canyon on a golf course where houses start at 5,000 sq. ft. and have a lake in my front yard and the nearest light is multiple miles away. I did NOT just arrive in such a place because I am a jack ass. COPY? 10-4?
Understood Earnest Shub? What does Shub mean? I can tell you what it is in Hebrew, but you probably could care less.
Have a nice day...
Newton answered your first question 300 years ago.
As to your second question - what do you think was here first, a planet spinning at the right speed, or millions of developed species searching the universe in search of a non-hostile environment?
(P.s. boasting about your material wealth and intellectual prowess will impress no-one).
I said "who cares" and "so what" when speaking of the "things"...and only said it because of his insistent blabbering about things regarding me that he tries to portray me as some sort of idiot....again, I do not care about what I have and have given it away before...BIG DEAL.
He needs to take a deep breath and a step back. I have seen your postings of what you have done as well, so it's cool. I know who and what I am and when pushed, I will put down any notion of me being ?????
Kind of like you calling me a "TWIT"!
The earth was created before any "developed species"
Newton only "answered" the question, but who made it that way?
And before you get carried away with thinking men can explain the answers to all of the 50 questions I have posted, back up.
Perhaps I shall repost them to REMOVE ALL DOUBT sir?
Ever learning and yet never coming to the knowledge of the truth.
And these are the thinkers ???
Yes the argument for God is very sound.
When we look at Godel's maths proof and the current new string theories and multiuniverse maths etc the debate is overnight favouring God's existence. At the very least atheists are technically now all agnostics.
Einstein claimed everything is energy. The universes energy is obviously creative which presents another truism about God's existence. Spaghetti monsters don't create life itself.
A person has to really go out of their way to get old stale atheist views any traction.
Thanks science for providing the new math which indicates intelligent design.
A link to a famous evolutionist who now believes in theories about intelligent design. Apparently it is no longer seen as poppycock.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/opini … rpose.html
“I could enlarge on that in terms of the possible existence of extraterrestrial manipulators who interfere, and so on, but I think this would be getting too far from the general topic of discussion.”
"There’s one theory of the universe that I rather like — I accept it in an almost joking spirit — and that is that Planet Earth in our solar system is a kind of zoo for extraterrestrial beings who dwell out there somewhere."
It's difficult to understand how anything Hamilton had to say in that article even comes close to the supernatural god of another universe that created this one, loves use, cares for us and made the universe just for us. Perhaps you should look for another "famous evolutionist" that comes a little closer to your own worldview to use a "proof" of ID?
As usual you deliberately avoid the main point ie intelligent design concepts are now respectable.
Well, respectable to those that believe in that invisible god. To others, not so much as there is no intelligence to be found and no need for one.
But the main point was your failed attempt to provide "evidence" of a supernatural god: using quotes from someone that said nothing of the kind was kind of a failure. It becomes more and more common as a desperate attempt to "prove" something that is, also more and more commonly, accepted as probably without truth.
We are merely saying that Intelligent design is no longer a "foolish concept'.
I have no idea why you keep asking for "proof' as that's a totally different topic. The topic here is a discussion about ontological proofs some of which are now clearly backed up by modern science and maths.
http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy … y-creative
If you aren't trying to provide proof (or evidence perhaps) why the endless reports of some "famous" person saying ID exists? Admittedly, it is a logical falsehood, but most of what the ID group says is - another tidbit is no surprise.
While ID isn't (and never was) actually foolish, it wasn't, and isn't "respectable" either. It can't be until some form of evidence beyond a yearning for a god is found. Until that point it is only a hypothesis created out of desire and ignorance, but that doesn't make it "respectable". No one but believers are promoting it, no one but believers think it's likely at all - that dozens, thousands or millions of believers think ID is true doesn't make it respectable.
"I am open to the view that....." = just one trend of thinking for one person. Why would you place more emphasis on that man's views than mine or any other? Just because it supports your own views?
Talk about blind bias!
Intelligent design is now an accepted concept. Get used to it.
Ok Oz, let me just quote here what you asked in that question:
"Is the energy of the universe more than merely "explosive" and actually highly creative.? Is creativity an indicator of intelligence? Has pure energy created infinite variety, amazing laws and life itself?"
My understanding is that "Energy" is created by difference. Energy is not a substance as we know it. One can refer to its properties as being able to flow, but this not implying that energy has substance as a "thing." In the same way that some who don't grasp the subject well would regard "radiation" as a substance. Well, it simply is not a thing. Radiation is a happening, a direction in which energy is transferred. You can stop that energy irradiating by negating any difference in energy level, so then there is no potential energy.
Thus your representation of energy as being "pure energy," or "creative," to my mind comes from a misconception. Are you not portraying energy as having a finite existence, with perhaps a mind, a consciousness of its own? That in my understanding is false. Therefore your question is not valid or logical.
Your understanding of energy is totally incorrect.
We just have to look at a nuclear bomb to get a glimpse of energy. Far from being explosive that limitless energy has created everything including life. Of course it's creative! These self evident truths can't be denied. It's one of the reasons believers find it incomprehensible how anyone could "miss" God's existence.
My question is highly rhetorical in order to lead people into discovering the truth themselves.
Depends on how you define "creative", doesn't it? Wind and rain are also "creative" and form some of the most beautiful things on earth. Coral is. Volcanoes are. But none of those are intelligent, none have a reasoned purpose - if "creative" does not include intelligence then energy is certainly creative. If intelligence, purpose or goals are required to be creative then it is not.
They all share the same energy of the universe. It is this that is causing infinite creativity.
I question your assumption that you need to use rhetoric to help me or anyone else to find the "truth themselves." I am searching for my own understanding of truth yet you don't have the slightest respect for my conclusions.
I mean, it's not as if you have a monopoly in regard to knowledge of the truth. How often do you adjust, even change, your understanding? Or is it so set in stone as to be irrefutable?
Any perception of "truth" is bound to be coloured by personal background information/experience/desires/fears, etc. Add to that the desire to be right over any other opinion and you end up with plain old dogma.
So, Oztinato, you can have my respect for the journey you are on but not necessarily for the conclusions you make regarding "truth" or the nature of energy. For the time being I stick with my own conclusions, thank you.
I'm trying to link you up to recent scientific research which is accelerating at break neck speed. I don't believe God is "burning gays" in the fires of hell. Far from it. The Hindus even believe in tranny gods! If you read between the lines the new pope is encouraging priests to be gay.
The science is looking much better than even year ago for suggesting intelligent design is a respectable concept.
Creative implies intelligence.
Energy that creates life and complex physics is now the subject of intelligent design hypothesis by scientists. That's the whole point: something appears to be in charge. It's boiling down to either aliens or God.
relating to or involving the use of the imagination or original ideas to create something.
"change unleashes people's creative energy"
a person whose job involves creative work.
"the most important people in the mix will be creatives and direct marketing specialists
Then we do not agree, for energy has no intelligence we have ever detected. A wooden block, sitting at the top of a pole, certainly has energy but is not intelligent. We've never seen intelligence in a photon. A comet whizzing by has energy but again, no energy.
"That's the whole point: something appears to be in charge."
Only to the believers demanding a "purpose" to their life beyond what they, themselves, give it or demand that they know everything there is to know - as the only answer available is that made up god they choose that one. To the rest of us chaos is in charge and always has been. We're OK with accepting that we don't have all the answers, too.
Good analogy in my view. That block "sits" on the pole by virtue of its position in relation to the earth. It is held there by the earth's attractive force, gravity. That pole creates a difference, a potential energy that may act upon the block and make it move, if and when the pole is removed (or more precisely, if the positional relationship between block and earth changes). That changing is in fact the "energy."
Thus I contend, it is the constantly changing relationships that create the differences which cause energy to "flow" and, in the process, cause work to be done.
One such work (or, if you like, happening) is life itself.
In general, it takes kinetic energy to "create" anything. The falling block, in other words. Moving wind or water. Chemical reaction, which I suppose could be considered kinetic as molecules are moving and rearranging, but is also potential energy as chemical bonds have differing energy levels.
One can make whatever assumption seems comfortable to his/ her mind, and therefore feel comfortable. The question posited in unknowable to human consciousness. That is why throughout the ages, mankind has believed in a higher being, a first cause, a inherent belief that we are not the ultimate realization of reality.
We're a virus on the butt end of the universe with delusions of grandeur. No more significance off this planet than a spit on the sidewalk.
But we mean everything to ourselves and each other. That's all that matters. To us, anyway. What god can give us a purpose? It would be it's purpose, not ours.
If we need purpose, we make it for ourselves. Nothing can give us one that means anything to us.
I would disagree. I don't think we are a virus on the butt end of the universe (although we do display delusions of grandeur). We are a part of a greater whole, a logical progression at this point in space and time. Perhaps not a logical progression in the greater universe or maybe.
You say we mean everything to ourselves and each other. Were that true, we'd be doing things quite differently; don't you think? We aren't anything to each other, unless it is deemed in our individual best interests to be so. Which is funny because that is the purpose at least one religion has attempted to give us. To care about one another and the universe as a whole. Were we to care about each other, with as much compassion as we do our own selves, I wonder what we could accomplish as a species?
If we need purpose, I suppose we do make it for ourselves. But, on an individual level. The idea of God is to give us purpose as a whole. I can't think of anything which might give us a purpose, as a whole (outside of a collective belief in a higher purpose), other than some cataclysm which would cause humanity to believe that our only hope was to work together for our collective survival but that would only last as long as that particular crisis lasted. Wouldn't it be nice if we could accept a way to care and work toward the common good, outside of the threat of mass extinction?
Well who says a virus on the butt end of the universe isn't significant? Just that humanity isn't more or less so in an objective view.
Actually much study has been done on what drives all things. It's not survival as so many think, though that's part of it; it reproduction. Therefore, as the observations show, some animals including humans, will lay down their lives to save two brothers or eight cousins just so the genes have a better chance to be passed on. Kinship is understood by a lot of animals.
Apes facing a larger dominant enemy will often grab a child, knowing it's the dominant ape's child. The dominant ape backs off, the other guy makes his escape and lets the kid go in view of the group. One researcher noticed that occasionally mistakes get made. One old guy on his way out grabbed a kid, realized it was his, and tossed it to safety before the other ape got to him.
Game theory has been developed and tested on various animals. Within a kinship they cooperate, as long as the next guy doesn't stab you in the back. Then next time, the co-operator might forgive and cooperate again once, or stab the other guy in the back first.
Some species even try this with non-relatives. There is even a virus that will conditionally cooperate with another strain of the same species, so to speak. So this strategy runs deep in evolution and in our genes.
Reciprocity is another one. Animals will do each other a favor. They expect the same in return. Often they get it. But if they don't they get angry about it. Fair play is the same thing. Various species understand it.
We don't need a god to tell us how to behave, evolution is teaching us. Will we ever get it right? It's in our best interest to care about each other as we care for kin that share our genes. Why? Because if everyone did it, and didn't take advantage of opportunities to stab us in the back, we'd all have better lives. Including the back stabbers. If they could only figured that out.
Give us another few thousand years. Not so long ago slavery was fine, torture was fine, genocide was par for the course, homosexuals were hated by everyone including god, people were sacrificed due to bad harvests. We've come a long way.
We have a way to go. But there's hope. Even in the rest of the animals. Yes, there seems to be an object morality for subjective things.
I'll be honest. I don't necessarily believe reproduction is what drives all things. I don't think survival of the genes comes into anyone's thought processes when they lay down their lives for another. I suppose it is fun to think we function on such a basic level but I don't think that thinking it necessarily makes it so.
As to the ape grabbing the child of the dominant ape in order to survive....you can simply attribute it to reproduction but it is more complicated than that.
But, you are right. I've read studies that even plants recognize familial relationships and work together with others from the same parent plant; working together to starve out seeds from other plants of the same type so that all from one line can prosper together. Interesting, when you think about it. There is so much we don't yet know about things as simple as a daisy. I suppose once the other seedlings are disposed of the working together ceases to be of use and they all start competing for resources.
I agree that we don't 'need' a god to tell us how to behave but I will say that not needing one does not preclude the existence of one. And, evolution is not teaching us anything so much as collective trial and error is. That isn't evolution, by my way of thinking although our collective behavior does evolve. I doubt if we took a group of babies and let them grow free of any influence from our society that they would grow up with a complete understanding of what our history as a species has been over the last several thousand years and get it right, or wrong, in line with how we are interacting.
It may be in our collective best interests to care about each other but I doubt, with our society set up the way it is, we will progress toward that any time soon. I don't know that our lives would be better if we did care about each other. Not in a physical sense and that is what we look toward when making these determinations. Definitely from an emotional stand point but we aren't programmed, here in the West, to consider that to be a measuring stick for success.
I agree that we have come a long way in a very short time. So many things which were once considered acceptable have been pushed to the wayside as anti social and wrong. However, how far have we really come? Slavery is not a thing of the past. Neither is torture or genocide. Science has helped us put aside hatred for people once considered different. It has helped us understand the reasons for bad harvests, etc; but science has proven itself to be a double edged sword. For every sacrifice we no longer make to ensure a good harvest there are hundreds of people who are exposed to chemicals which can cause myriad health related problems. So, we do still sacrifice lives in our attempt to improve lives.
"I'll be honest. I don't necessarily believe reproduction is what drives all things. I don't think survival of the genes comes into anyone's thought processes when they lay down their lives for another."
And rightly so. It's far more complicated than just one thing. But we do a lot of things without thinking about the deep rooted causes.
In the end there's no such thing as a selfless act. Altruism exists, of course, but it's not selfless. Everyone has a reason for doing anything, and that reason can't be selfless. For one, all conscious acts are of self. You can't divorce yourself from the act.
But more then that, we get something out of it or we wouldn't do it.
Now, that something may be nothing more than a good feeling. You may not have liked yourself if you didn't. In other words, how you view the world and self determine whether you cooperate, act altruistically, or try to get one over on some one. No matter what, you think its in your best interest to do so.
So being selfish isn't always bad. Sometimes it makes us sacrifice ourselves for others, and sometimes it makes us do nice things for others. I try to be selfish in a positive instead of negative way.
I know from experience and history that causing conflict breeds more conflict, both for me and others. And I'd like to be left in peace, treated fairly, etc. So I try to do that for others. Most people reciprocate.
But I've also learned: don't set yourself up for conflict. Expect as little as possible. If you lend a book, don't expect it back, or don't lend it. Same with money or anything else.
If it's going to burn in your gut if you don't get it back, it's going to cause conflict, loss of friendship, and maybe violence. Want to avoid stuff coming down on your head? Don't cause stuff to come down on other people. That's positive selfishness. Doesn't guarantee reciprocity, but there is far more probability of it.
I say forget the golden rule. It's got major problems. The simplest method for positive behavior is: Do no intentional harm. Boy would the world change if that were followed as a matter of personal choice.
So from a purely selfish perspective, while loving everyone is impossible, having respect for them, letting them be as long as they don't infringe on other people's freedom, and doing no intentional harm, isn't. And in my opinion it's the way forward toward a better world for all. And it comes from observing the world and learning what it teaches.
It seems to be a very difficult mental jump for anyone who has been educated to believe we humans are in some way superior to any other animal. To even suggest that we are in anyway equal to chimpanzees or bonobos is anathema to anyone who accepts the existence of a supernatural "god." Yet we apparently possess traits very similar to both those species.
Not very eerie; we're all of the "great ape" classification, the taxonomic "family" we belong to. One should expect a good deal of similarity with such close relatives.
Johnny: sometime watch a bonobo matriarch (they are a matriarchal society) as she "handles" a misbehaving male. It's all about sexual favors and it quietens him right down.
Haha, thanks Wilderness! I wonder how she manages wayward gay bonobos.
I might feel threatened or - maybe given special consessions, provided I bow and scrape before her! Imagine!
LOl While it isn't quite so obvious and a little more "refined", tell me our own females don't do the same thing! Devious, they are, whether Bonobo or human!
Yet they apparently love sexual activities of all kinds. Maybe they teach us all a thing or two about opening up to joy and fun and laughter.
They almost certainly could. We're pretty uptight about too many things, an doubly so for anything of a sexual nature.
Yet it's the only way we're gonna spread those genes, dang it! What are people thinking?
Well, I saw an article where an artificial womb was being tested with lambs...artificial fertilization is already being used - can the whole procedure be done without human contact? Not that I'd be much interested if it could...
I'm sure it could. Ventner could probably create artificial DNA for it, an artificial sperm cell and egg and humans wouldn't even have to do anything at all. Pretty soon they'd be replicating themselves and having all the fun. They weren't created by a god so they'd be guilt free.
Not that I ever felt guilty about it. Screw god. It's fun. No... on second thought, don't screw god. He's a real prude apparently. I meant: forget god; sex is fun. With or without little blue pills.
I saw that article also. The ramifications are much bigger than whether we could procreate without contact. Think about it. Depending on how early a fetus could be moved to an artificial womb it could make abortion a thing of the past, if society is willing to take responsibility for all unwanted pregnancies. We could see a very, very large percentage of our population raised by the state. It would completely change the fabric of our society.
Hadn't thought of the abortion angle, but don't really see it as something society might want to do, either. It seems much like removing a tumor and deciding that we should clone the tissue, making another human being out of it and forcing society to support the new person.
Most of society does not seem to accept the definition of a fetus as a person - without that assumption there doesn't seem to be an reason to create another person out of it, a person that society would then have to care for.
Most of society? I disagree. Whether we agree on the point a fetus becomes a human, society is divided fairly equally on the abortion issue.
Perhaps it's only a technicality, but "most" means 50.0001%. As abortion is legal, it seems reasonable to think that "most" people want it available, and that means a fetus is not a person. I don't mean to imply that 3/4, or 9/10's of the population think a fetus is not a person.
Most people wanting it available doesn't equate to most people thinking it is something we shouldn't hope to find an alternative to. I'm a woman. I'm pro choice and will remain so but I do have doubts about abortion.
I think, if we could find a viable option which would allow woman a choice for their lives but resolve the moral dilemma of abortion by giving another option for the fetus's life we might see a push to use it. I, personally, think it would be to the detriment of society but it would be another choice.
I certainly hope you aren't implying I was saying we are superior. If so, you have a strange way of misreading intent.
Many traits. And not just with them. Reciprocity, forgiveness, cooperation. All traits we thought only we had. Now we see nature full of them. Of course there's always mistrust, hate, fear of others, anger, frustration and the idea that we can some how mess someone over, gain from it, and not bring crap down on our own heads (Not likely)., is also there.
Mistrust and fear are justifiable at times. Hate never is, even if it's hate of hate. But all of them are auto responses. Makes it hard to control or kill them. it can be done, but we're never completely rid of them.
The desire for revenge, to be made whole, an eye for an eye as fair play. It's all there as here.
All of it is part of this weird and wonderful, as well as brutal, process.
Do no intentional harm, and hope it becomes a meme and spreads, so no one will do intentional harm to you. For now, so less people will.
The question posited "is" unknowable, ---an inherent belief. Apologies for the typos...
An impressive response. I think we, in terms of our human development, are over striving to understand what we can not know yet. It is like a grade 2 student trying to grasp advanced mathematics...
Kinda gives a whole new meaning to that old song 'I only have eyes for yew'...
Animated Michelangelos and Berninis, but I see why they grieve God from time to time.
by Sooner284 years ago
The argument usually goes:1. All that begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.4. If the universe has a cause, it must be timeless and...
by Bibowen7 years ago
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) looked for a reasonable explanation for why anything exists at all. He said that God was that reasonable explanation. W.L Craig has formulated the Leibnizian argument this way:P(1)...
by mischeviousme5 years ago
"I am not an atheist. I have a rational fear of God, and yet the common sense to ignore it." The Bible gives us an idea about how to be accountable for our actions, while also giving us a pair of scapegoats....
by David Bowman7 years ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from...
by Rishad I Habib14 months ago
The God Paradox - also known as the Omnipotence paradox which addresses the question whether the existence of an omnipotent entity is logically possible.Paradox of the stone (one version): "Could God create a stone...
by Sa Toya3 years ago
A friend and I had a conversation/discussion on this and she believes such occurrences are proof that God is real.She went on to say:If evil spirits are out there, there must be good spirits...like angels God is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.