Pat - been doing a lot of thinking about our talk about the origin of the universe.
Contradictions dont exist, unless something qualifies it as only an apparent contradiction. Either the ball is blue or it is red. Saying “The ball is blue and the ball is red” can only be true if we speculate that the color is contingent on the light of the room, so in white light the ball is blue and in (some other) light, the ball is red.
It seems your position is that certain things, if true, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the universe is impossible. If everything that exists needs something to exist before it in order for it to exist, nothing can exist. If everything that moves needs something that was already moving to move it, nothing can be moving. But since things do exist and things do move, the contradiction must be qualified as only an apparent contradiction by the claim that a being outside of our universe made the first thing and powered the first motion.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Pure chance does not produce patterns, it is mathematically impossible.[/quote]I disagree. It is not mathematically impossible, but is so meaninglessly improbable that it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in an infinite, invisible triune being who designed it. In fact almost anything would be more logical and reasonable to believe in than a designer-less, uncreated universe. Geez, the human genome alone makes the very notion laughable. And that’s my best shot at my old Thomistic mindset.
“The race”. Yessir, every one of the elect will win it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
Thank you! I appreciate the fact that you will put something out there and try to hide behind bullshit. It’s how dialog happens. Now I would appreciate if you read the next part carefully, because it’s dense.
Let’s back up on terminology. Now, what the deductive cosmological form, argues is that since everything that exists is caused and relates to one another through the causal chain, there must be that which is uncaused the bring the caused into existence. It is necessary because an infinite regress cannot exist and problem demands a solution. The only solution is the Uncaused-cause. It also demands that there is only ONE uncaused-cause. You cannot have two.
Well pat, how the fuck do you get God out of that?.. Well, first look at what properties an uncaused-cause must have to be what it is. By the simple fact that it is an uncaused-cause it must: be eternal(in all dimensions), it must be able to cause with out being acted on (indication of will), it must sit outside the causal chain (it can not be caused). A God who is a creator must have the same properties. There cannot both be an uncaused-cause and a God who shares the same properties because only one thing can have those properties. Therefore, the uncaused-cause is God. This is an inferred conclusion, not a deductive one.
Now there are atheists who claim that this uncaused-cause is not God. We can go back and forth, but I cannot prove it like the uncaused-cause. There in lies the only true weakness to the argument.
Now I sense you have a lot of trouble with time. It’s a problematic thing because you can’t see how cool your car looks when you in the car. It’s hard to look at things with out the element of time when you are a slave to it. If you can let that go, things become much easier to comprehend. It doesn’t matter if things have existed for ever, that does not remove their contingencies, there lies the problem.
I know you are very interested in the search for truth…I am too. I would recommend you get involved in philosophy. It’s not religious, it’s pure search for truth and it is the source for all disciplines of study. That why people get Phd.s, doctor of philosophy in ____. Metaphysics is critical to it.
I gave you a Kant link, he’s interesting. I used to hate him but I have warmed up to him. My favorites were, Aristotle, Locke, Hume (I loved Hume, and he was an atheist), Leibinez (mind bender and co-creator of calculus), DesCarte, and a few others… Philosophy demands that it studies it’s own history, the reason is that you don’t rehash old ideas and think they are yours.
If you look, I espouse nothing new, I merely adapt it to the situation at hand…
Pat, you raise several good points that are worth discussing. I want to do them justice, so am going to earmark this post and come back to it once we finish discussing the first point.
It seems to me that what you call the deductive cosmological form is logically contradictory to the idea of an uncaused cause. It states that everything has a cause, and if true it is impossible for there to be an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause is impossible, according to the deductive cosmological form. If an uncaused cause exists, it disproves the idea that everything must have a cause.
Do you see what I’m saying?
Why do you believe an infinite regress cannot exist? The theory of relativity turns determinism on its head. It proves that we are only infants when it comes to understanding time, or infinity. I believe it is very possible that an infinite regress can exist.
Furthermore, the idea of an uncaused cause actually requires admitting the possibility of an infinite regress. If God has always existed, then God is the ultimate cause that has existed for infinity. And if you acknowledge this possibility, why isn’t it possible for matter and energy to have always existed?
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
And this hypothetical Godless universe generated life upon billions and billions and billions of random events when one of these random events caused little pieces of stuff (atoms) to come together in the perfect ratio of other smaller pieces of stuff to generate a self sustainable cell which became every living being we know today? And this very unlikely event occurred an infinite number of times in various other places in the universe? [/quote]
Forbes, the universe is big enough for quadrillions of events to come together to do lots of things, so be careful where you are going with this…
However, there is no such thing as true randomness and hence no random events. [/quote]
True, but randomness implies a lacking in any definite plan or order or purpose. In the absence of thought (or purpose) any event is random.
By the way, what do you do for a living? A field related to Physics by any chance?[/quote]
The laws of the universe are not random. When I drop a bowling ball from my rooftop deck, it won’t randomly float into the sky.
In anticipation of the question, I’ll share my opinion in advance. I believe the laws have always existed, just as matter and energy have always existed. It doesn’t require a divine intelligence for gravity to pull my bowling ball to the ground. That is simply how things work. I do believe it’s possible that things behave differently under certain extreme conditions like black holes, but that just requires expanding the laws to account for predictable behavior in those conditions.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
And this hypothetical Godless universe generated life upon billions and billions and billions of random events when one of these random events caused little pieces of stuff (atoms) to come together in the perfect ratio of other smaller pieces of stuff to generate a self sustainable cell which became every living being we know today? And this very unlikely event occurred an infinite number of times in various other places in the universe? [/quote]
Forbes, the universe is big enough for quadrillions of events to come together to do lots of things, so be careful where you are going with this…
However, there is no such thing as true randomness and hence no random events. [/quote]
True, but randomness implies a lacking in any definite plan or order or purpose. In the absence of thought (or purpose) any event is random.
By the way, what do you do for a living? A field related to Physics by any chance?[/quote]
Well, even more simply than that, randomness means to exist with out cause or reason.
No, if I were to do it all over again I might do physics because I find it fascinating. But you have go through years of mundane Newtonian physics before you can get to the good stuff. I formally studied psychology and philosphy, but since you cannot make any money doing that shit, I work on computers…Servers mainly.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
Because the universe would have to be omnipotent, or have the power to move itself.[/quote]
Why would the universe have to be omnipotent?
As to moving itself, the universe is currently moving itself with no need for divine intervention. You’re assuming a start to the movement, but what if it has always moved?[/quote]
Well, I have never seen a rock move itself. Or, anything effect something without something that caused it. A tree doesn’t grow without water, the leaves don’t turn red without fall. Infinite cause and effect is a logical fallacy (the reason why we have people trying to show that casual relation is not true, and is instead just chance). And if you rely on the casual relationship you need a uncaused cause or no effect would have come into existence. The uncaused cause it would need to be something that has the intrinsic power to move itself and move other things.[/quote]
I addressed this in my latest post to Pat. Rocks don’t move themselves, but they respond predictably to natural events. And it’s perfectly possible that this chain extends forever, in both directions. The human mind is incapable of grasping infinity, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
And this hypothetical Godless universe generated life upon billions and billions and billions of random events when one of these random events caused little pieces of stuff (atoms) to come together in the perfect ratio of other smaller pieces of stuff to generate a self sustainable cell which became every living being we know today? And this very unlikely event occurred an infinite number of times in various other places in the universe? [/quote]
In a truly infinite universe, any possibility, however remote, must eventually come to pass. Randomly selecting letters would eventually produce Hamlet, given an infinite number of draws.[/quote]
Pure chance does not produce patterns, it is mathematically impossible.[/quote]
What appears to be a pattern could simply be pure chance played out in a very specific way. Hamlet may appear to be ordered, when in my scenario it is actually a random output in an infinite series of samples.
Besides, I’m not arguing for pure chance. I think laws exist, which are inherently ordered. These laws may be mistaken for intelligence and will, but they aren’t self-aware or self-directing. They are simply the way things work.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - been doing a lot of thinking about our talk about the origin of the universe.
Contradictions dont exist, unless something qualifies it as only an apparent contradiction. Either the ball is blue or it is red. Saying “The ball is blue and the ball is red” can only be true if we speculate that the color is contingent on the light of the room, so in white light the ball is blue and in (some other) light, the ball is red.
It seems your position is that certain things, if true, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the universe is impossible. If everything that exists needs something to exist before it in order for it to exist, nothing can exist. If everything that moves needs something that was already moving to move it, nothing can be moving. But since things do exist and things do move, the contradiction must be qualified as only an apparent contradiction by the claim that a being outside of our universe made the first thing and powered the first motion.
Would you agree so far?[/quote]
Well, logical contradictions cannot exist. If the presuppositions of the ball is true and not in dispute then the ball cannot be both red and blue. Two opposing logical properties cannot occupy the same logical space, nor can a single logical property occupy two logical spaces. BUT, they can get damn close.
We need to be watchful of words like ‘before’ as it indicates time. Unfortunately, English and probably no other language has a way of expressing such things with out the language of time. But yes, if something exists it, it’s owes it’s existence to something else. But I don’t see the contradiction unless is made that something that cannot cause, caused or something that cannot move anything, moved something. I really liken it to a simple math. Going forward in the causal chain, you add properties going backwards you subtract properties. Notice you don’t multiply or divide. If I remove the ball’s redness, it’s still a ball, if I remove it’s roundness it’s no longer a ball. If I put a stick through it, it is still a ball, but it can also be a wheel, a hammer, or a butt plug.
I like where you are going though and I want to hear more.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
Thank you! I appreciate the fact that you will put something out there and try to hide behind bullshit. It’s how dialog happens. Now I would appreciate if you read the next part carefully, because it’s dense.
Let’s back up on terminology. Now, what the deductive cosmological form, argues is that since everything that exists is caused and relates to one another through the causal chain, there must be that which is uncaused the bring the caused into existence. It is necessary because an infinite regress cannot exist and problem demands a solution. The only solution is the Uncaused-cause. It also demands that there is only ONE uncaused-cause. You cannot have two.
Well pat, how the fuck do you get God out of that?.. Well, first look at what properties an uncaused-cause must have to be what it is. By the simple fact that it is an uncaused-cause it must: be eternal(in all dimensions), it must be able to cause with out being acted on (indication of will), it must sit outside the causal chain (it can not be caused). A God who is a creator must have the same properties. There cannot both be an uncaused-cause and a God who shares the same properties because only one thing can have those properties. Therefore, the uncaused-cause is God. This is an inferred conclusion, not a deductive one.
Now there are atheists who claim that this uncaused-cause is not God. We can go back and forth, but I cannot prove it like the uncaused-cause. There in lies the only true weakness to the argument.
Now I sense you have a lot of trouble with time. It’s a problematic thing because you can’t see how cool your car looks when you in the car. It’s hard to look at things with out the element of time when you are a slave to it. If you can let that go, things become much easier to comprehend. It doesn’t matter if things have existed for ever, that does not remove their contingencies, there lies the problem.
I know you are very interested in the search for truth…I am too. I would recommend you get involved in philosophy. It’s not religious, it’s pure search for truth and it is the source for all disciplines of study. That why people get Phd.s, doctor of philosophy in ____. Metaphysics is critical to it.
I gave you a Kant link, he’s interesting. I used to hate him but I have warmed up to him. My favorites were, Aristotle, Locke, Hume (I loved Hume, and he was an atheist), Leibinez (mind bender and co-creator of calculus), DesCarte, and a few others… Philosophy demands that it studies it’s own history, the reason is that you don’t rehash old ideas and think they are yours.
If you look, I espouse nothing new, I merely adapt it to the situation at hand…
Pat, you raise several good points that are worth discussing. I want to do them justice, so am going to earmark this post and come back to it once we finish discussing the first point.
It seems to me that what you call the deductive cosmological form is logically contradictory to the idea of an uncaused cause. It states that everything has a cause, and if true it is impossible for there to be an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause is impossible, according to the deductive cosmological form. If an uncaused cause exists, it disproves the idea that everything must have a cause.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
Yes, but I disagree. As stated to Captain Planet, the uncaused-cause does not occupy the same logical space. Being uncaused does not automatically disable it from causing. They are two separate properties. If it were the uncausible-causer, then we have a contradiction. It also must necessarily sit outside the causal chain, which does not disable it’s ability to cause (if it wants too), but nothing outside of it can forcibly change it or move it.
Infinity can exist just fine, but an infinite regress cannot because it deals with subtraction. Eventually, your run out of shit to subtract. So you either have to answer the question with something, or go back to the beginning.
It is possible for matter and energy to have always existed, that doesn’t solve the problem of dependency. Same for the laws that matter and energy adhere to like, not being able to be created or destroyed. And indeed, it may never have. The big question there is can or did God create everything out of nothing, or did he create it out of himself which already existsâ?¦.I have no clue.
There are more problems though, you have paradoxes to deal with too, like Xeno’s paradox. Some say dividing by time solves it but it does not. Dividing by time only tells you where you are on the line, not how you got there.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
And this hypothetical Godless universe generated life upon billions and billions and billions of random events when one of these random events caused little pieces of stuff (atoms) to come together in the perfect ratio of other smaller pieces of stuff to generate a self sustainable cell which became every living being we know today? And this very unlikely event occurred an infinite number of times in various other places in the universe? [/quote]
Forbes, the universe is big enough for quadrillions of events to come together to do lots of things, so be careful where you are going with this…
However, there is no such thing as true randomness and hence no random events. [/quote]
True, but randomness implies a lacking in any definite plan or order or purpose. In the absence of thought (or purpose) any event is random.
By the way, what do you do for a living? A field related to Physics by any chance?[/quote]
Well, even more simply than that, randomness means to exist with out cause or reason.
No, if I were to do it all over again I might do physics because I find it fascinating. But you have go through years of mundane Newtonian physics before you can get to the good stuff. I formally studied psychology and philosphy, but since you cannot make any money doing that shit, I work on computers…Servers mainly.[/quote]
By your definition, wouldn’t God be random since He exists without cause?
I’d forgotten you have a background in psychology. At least you understand what I’m talking about when I refer to confirmatory bias And if I could go back to school, I would definitely get a degree in philosophy. Unfortunately, I never took any philosophy courses because at the time, due to my religious beliefs, I thought I already had all the answers.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
Thank you! I appreciate the fact that you will put something out there and try to hide behind bullshit. It’s how dialog happens. Now I would appreciate if you read the next part carefully, because it’s dense.
Let’s back up on terminology. Now, what the deductive cosmological form, argues is that since everything that exists is caused and relates to one another through the causal chain, there must be that which is uncaused the bring the caused into existence. It is necessary because an infinite regress cannot exist and problem demands a solution. The only solution is the Uncaused-cause. It also demands that there is only ONE uncaused-cause. You cannot have two.
Well pat, how the fuck do you get God out of that?.. Well, first look at what properties an uncaused-cause must have to be what it is. By the simple fact that it is an uncaused-cause it must: be eternal(in all dimensions), it must be able to cause with out being acted on (indication of will), it must sit outside the causal chain (it can not be caused). A God who is a creator must have the same properties. There cannot both be an uncaused-cause and a God who shares the same properties because only one thing can have those properties. Therefore, the uncaused-cause is God. This is an inferred conclusion, not a deductive one.
Now there are atheists who claim that this uncaused-cause is not God. We can go back and forth, but I cannot prove it like the uncaused-cause. There in lies the only true weakness to the argument.
Now I sense you have a lot of trouble with time. It’s a problematic thing because you can’t see how cool your car looks when you in the car. It’s hard to look at things with out the element of time when you are a slave to it. If you can let that go, things become much easier to comprehend. It doesn’t matter if things have existed for ever, that does not remove their contingencies, there lies the problem.
I know you are very interested in the search for truth…I am too. I would recommend you get involved in philosophy. It’s not religious, it’s pure search for truth and it is the source for all disciplines of study. That why people get Phd.s, doctor of philosophy in ____. Metaphysics is critical to it.
I gave you a Kant link, he’s interesting. I used to hate him but I have warmed up to him. My favorites were, Aristotle, Locke, Hume (I loved Hume, and he was an atheist), Leibinez (mind bender and co-creator of calculus), DesCarte, and a few others… Philosophy demands that it studies it’s own history, the reason is that you don’t rehash old ideas and think they are yours.
If you look, I espouse nothing new, I merely adapt it to the situation at hand…
Pat, you raise several good points that are worth discussing. I want to do them justice, so am going to earmark this post and come back to it once we finish discussing the first point.
It seems to me that what you call the deductive cosmological form is logically contradictory to the idea of an uncaused cause. It states that everything has a cause, and if true it is impossible for there to be an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause is impossible, according to the deductive cosmological form. If an uncaused cause exists, it disproves the idea that everything must have a cause.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
Yes, but I disagree. As stated to Captain Planet, the uncaused-cause does not occupy the same logical space. Being uncaused does not automatically disable it from causing. They are two separate properties. If it were the uncausible-causer, then we have a contradiction. It also must necessarily sit outside the causal chain, which does not disable it’s ability to cause (if it wants too), but nothing outside of it can forcibly change it or move it.
Infinity can exist just fine, but an infinite regress cannot because it deals with subtraction. Eventually, your run out of shit to subtract. So you either have to answer the question with something, or go back to the beginning.
It is possible for matter and energy to have always existed, that doesn’t solve the problem of dependency. Same for the laws that matter and energy adhere to like, not being able to be created or destroyed. And indeed, it may never have. The big question there is can or did God create everything out of nothing, or did he create it out of himself which already existsâ?¦.I have no clue.
There are more problems though, you have paradoxes to deal with too, like Xeno’s paradox. Some say dividing by time solves it but it does not. Dividing by time only tells you where you are on the line, not how you got there.
[/quote]
Pat, the logical contradiction isn’t that if something isn’t caused, it cannot cause.
The contradiction is claiming that everything must have a cause. If that is true, an uncaused cause is impossible.
Your argument against an infinite regress only makes sense if you think narrowly of time as a fixed quantity. However, the laws of relativity show that time is not a fixed quantity. If you acknowledge the possibility of timelessness, an infinite regress doesn’t create a logical contradiction.
And again, there is no problem of dependency if you accept that something (e.g., god or energy/matter) has always existed. By definition, something that has always existed doesn’t depend on anything else in order to exist. It had no beginning, hence it has no cause.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
And this hypothetical Godless universe generated life upon billions and billions and billions of random events when one of these random events caused little pieces of stuff (atoms) to come together in the perfect ratio of other smaller pieces of stuff to generate a self sustainable cell which became every living being we know today? And this very unlikely event occurred an infinite number of times in various other places in the universe? [/quote]
Forbes, the universe is big enough for quadrillions of events to come together to do lots of things, so be careful where you are going with this…
However, there is no such thing as true randomness and hence no random events. [/quote]
True, but randomness implies a lacking in any definite plan or order or purpose. In the absence of thought (or purpose) any event is random.
By the way, what do you do for a living? A field related to Physics by any chance?[/quote]
Well, even more simply than that, randomness means to exist with out cause or reason.
No, if I were to do it all over again I might do physics because I find it fascinating. But you have go through years of mundane Newtonian physics before you can get to the good stuff. I formally studied psychology and philosphy, but since you cannot make any money doing that shit, I work on computers…Servers mainly.[/quote]
By your definition, wouldn’t God be random since He exists without cause?
I’d forgotten you have a background in psychology. At least you understand what I’m talking about when I refer to confirmatory bias And if I could go back to school, I would definitely get a degree in philosophy. Unfortunately, I never took any philosophy courses because at the time, due to my religious beliefs, I thought I already had all the answers.[/quote]
No God cannot be random because he by necessity is not a contingent being. By definition he could not have just popped into existence metaphysically. If that were the case, he wouldn’t be an uncaused-causer.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
Thank you! I appreciate the fact that you will put something out there and try to hide behind bullshit. It’s how dialog happens. Now I would appreciate if you read the next part carefully, because it’s dense.
Let’s back up on terminology. Now, what the deductive cosmological form, argues is that since everything that exists is caused and relates to one another through the causal chain, there must be that which is uncaused the bring the caused into existence. It is necessary because an infinite regress cannot exist and problem demands a solution. The only solution is the Uncaused-cause. It also demands that there is only ONE uncaused-cause. You cannot have two.
Well pat, how the fuck do you get God out of that?.. Well, first look at what properties an uncaused-cause must have to be what it is. By the simple fact that it is an uncaused-cause it must: be eternal(in all dimensions), it must be able to cause with out being acted on (indication of will), it must sit outside the causal chain (it can not be caused). A God who is a creator must have the same properties. There cannot both be an uncaused-cause and a God who shares the same properties because only one thing can have those properties. Therefore, the uncaused-cause is God. This is an inferred conclusion, not a deductive one.
Now there are atheists who claim that this uncaused-cause is not God. We can go back and forth, but I cannot prove it like the uncaused-cause. There in lies the only true weakness to the argument.
Now I sense you have a lot of trouble with time. It’s a problematic thing because you can’t see how cool your car looks when you in the car. It’s hard to look at things with out the element of time when you are a slave to it. If you can let that go, things become much easier to comprehend. It doesn’t matter if things have existed for ever, that does not remove their contingencies, there lies the problem.
I know you are very interested in the search for truth…I am too. I would recommend you get involved in philosophy. It’s not religious, it’s pure search for truth and it is the source for all disciplines of study. That why people get Phd.s, doctor of philosophy in ____. Metaphysics is critical to it.
I gave you a Kant link, he’s interesting. I used to hate him but I have warmed up to him. My favorites were, Aristotle, Locke, Hume (I loved Hume, and he was an atheist), Leibinez (mind bender and co-creator of calculus), DesCarte, and a few others… Philosophy demands that it studies it’s own history, the reason is that you don’t rehash old ideas and think they are yours.
If you look, I espouse nothing new, I merely adapt it to the situation at hand…
Pat, you raise several good points that are worth discussing. I want to do them justice, so am going to earmark this post and come back to it once we finish discussing the first point.
It seems to me that what you call the deductive cosmological form is logically contradictory to the idea of an uncaused cause. It states that everything has a cause, and if true it is impossible for there to be an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause is impossible, according to the deductive cosmological form. If an uncaused cause exists, it disproves the idea that everything must have a cause.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
Yes, but I disagree. As stated to Captain Planet, the uncaused-cause does not occupy the same logical space. Being uncaused does not automatically disable it from causing. They are two separate properties. If it were the uncausible-causer, then we have a contradiction. It also must necessarily sit outside the causal chain, which does not disable it’s ability to cause (if it wants too), but nothing outside of it can forcibly change it or move it.
Infinity can exist just fine, but an infinite regress cannot because it deals with subtraction. Eventually, your run out of shit to subtract. So you either have to answer the question with something, or go back to the beginning.
It is possible for matter and energy to have always existed, that doesn’t solve the problem of dependency. Same for the laws that matter and energy adhere to like, not being able to be created or destroyed. And indeed, it may never have. The big question there is can or did God create everything out of nothing, or did he create it out of himself which already existsÃ?¢?Ã?¦.I have no clue.
There are more problems though, you have paradoxes to deal with too, like Xeno’s paradox. Some say dividing by time solves it but it does not. Dividing by time only tells you where you are on the line, not how you got there.
[/quote]
Pat, the logical contradiction isn’t that if something isn’t caused, it cannot cause.
The contradiction is claiming that everything must have a cause. If that is true, an uncaused cause is impossible.
Your argument against an infinite regress only makes sense if you think narrowly of time as a fixed quantity. However, the laws of relativity show that time is not a fixed quantity. If you acknowledge the possibility of timelessness, an infinite regress doesn’t create a logical contradiction.
And again, there is no problem of dependency if you accept that something (e.g., god or energy/matter) has always existed. By definition, something that has always existed doesn’t depend on anything else in order to exist. It had no beginning, hence it has no cause.
[/quote]
I’ll answer backwards, what makes matter and energy what it is? Sorry to answer a question with a question but the answer, answers your question… Time is irrelevant here, it simply does not matter. Whether it exists infinitely or not, matter and energy is made of stuff and do stuff because of stuff.
Infinite regress is a logical fallacy, because it necessarily begs the question. It’s not the same as arguing against infinity. For instance, what’s an atom made of? why does it do what it does. Where does the stuff that made the atom come from. etc. As you answer each question you’re ‘removing’ properties. This process always leads to the same place. Further, the fewer properties something has, the more it has in common with everything else. For instance, If I held a proton from a gold atom and a proton from a dog shit molecule could you tell the difference? Further, if I were to switched them and put them back, the dog shit would remain dog shit, and the gold would remain gold even though I switched out their protons.
Not everything is contingent, by necessity one thing cannot be. Further, there cannot be more than one non-contingent thing, because regression reduces to one (and always the same one), or none. Since none cannot do anything, one must.
Some have argued, that God’s existence is contingent on the universe, but that’s not so because he can exist and never caused anything, we just wouldn’t be around to question it…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Pure chance does not produce patterns, it is mathematically impossible.[/quote]I disagree. It is not mathematically impossible, but is so meaninglessly improbable that it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in an infinite, invisible triune being who designed it. In fact almost anything would be more logical and reasonable to believe in than a designer-less, uncreated universe. Geez, the human genome alone makes the very notion laughable. And that’s my best shot at my old Thomistic mindset.
[/quote]
You disagree that it is mathematically impossible that two molecules by “pure chance” slammed into each other (a al nothing and at the same time the big bang) and we have the universe as it is today? Take it out of the negative, you agree that it is mathematically possible for two molecules by pure chance to slam into each other and form the universe as we have it today?
I am sorry, Tirib math prevails on this one, the mathematical probability of the big bang to happen by pure chance and form the universe as it is today is impossible. The variables in which you can recreate the universe have a slim, almost nil, if not nil margin of error. And that is on an impossibly simplistic model compared to the universe.
[quote]
“The race”. Yessir, every one of the elect will win it.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
Because the universe would have to be omnipotent, or have the power to move itself.[/quote]
Why would the universe have to be omnipotent?
As to moving itself, the universe is currently moving itself with no need for divine intervention. You’re assuming a start to the movement, but what if it has always moved?[/quote]
Well, I have never seen a rock move itself. Or, anything effect something without something that caused it. A tree doesn’t grow without water, the leaves don’t turn red without fall. Infinite cause and effect is a logical fallacy (the reason why we have people trying to show that casual relation is not true, and is instead just chance). And if you rely on the casual relationship you need a uncaused cause or no effect would have come into existence. The uncaused cause it would need to be something that has the intrinsic power to move itself and move other things.[/quote]
I addressed this in my latest post to Pat. Rocks don’t move themselves, but they respond predictably to natural events. And it’s perfectly possible that this chain extends forever, in both directions. The human mind is incapable of grasping infinity, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.[/quote]
I know God is infinite, however matter is not.
If you look at the natural events, there are explanations for them, hurricanes, caused by the wind, caused by the sun. Earthquakes, plates shifting, molten material heating and cooling under neither the crust.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - been doing a lot of thinking about our talk about the origin of the universe.
Contradictions dont exist, unless something qualifies it as only an apparent contradiction. Either the ball is blue or it is red. Saying “The ball is blue and the ball is red” can only be true if we speculate that the color is contingent on the light of the room, so in white light the ball is blue and in (some other) light, the ball is red.
It seems your position is that certain things, if true, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the universe is impossible. If everything that exists needs something to exist before it in order for it to exist, nothing can exist. If everything that moves needs something that was already moving to move it, nothing can be moving. But since things do exist and things do move, the contradiction must be qualified as only an apparent contradiction by the claim that a being outside of our universe made the first thing and powered the first motion.
Would you agree so far?[/quote]
Well, logical contradictions cannot exist. If the presuppositions of the ball is true and not in dispute then the ball cannot be both red and blue. Two opposing logical properties cannot occupy the same logical space, nor can a single logical property occupy two logical spaces. BUT, they can get damn close.
We need to be watchful of words like ‘before’ as it indicates time. Unfortunately, English and probably no other language has a way of expressing such things with out the language of time. But yes, if something exists it, it’s owes it’s existence to something else. But I don’t see the contradiction unless is made that something that cannot cause, caused or something that cannot move anything, moved something. I really liken it to a simple math. Going forward in the causal chain, you add properties going backwards you subtract properties. Notice you don’t multiply or divide. If I remove the ball’s redness, it’s still a ball, if I remove it’s roundness it’s no longer a ball. If I put a stick through it, it is still a ball, but it can also be a wheel, a hammer, or a butt plug.
I like where you are going though and I want to hear more.
[/quote]
You wanted a claim from me. Here goes:
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
@ Brother Chris:
I’m saying only that it is not impossible for chance to produce patterns. It is wholly impossible that any atheistic explanation for the existence of ANYTHING could be true. You have to sit in gape jawed awe at what people will force into their minds to avoid believing that any God they may be morally responsible to exists.
As for “the race”? I am well aware and fair enough. Another time.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It is wholly impossible that any atheistic explanation for the existence of ANYTHING could be true. [/quote]What is your basis for saying this?[/quote]You really had to ask this? =] Number one would be the Word of almighty God. Also, I’ll let ya in on a little secret. I do see much formal validity in evidentialist argumentation for the existence of “god” or a god. My problem is I’m not interested in proving the existence of A god. I’m interested in advancing the kingdom and glory of THE God.
The holy One of Israel, the ancient of days, He who is from everlasting to everlasting, He who commanded all things to exist by the breath of His mouth, He who said “let Us make man in Our image”, He before whom all the nations of the Earth tremble and are counted as nothing, He who became flesh and dwelt among us as we beheld His glory as one sent from the Father, He who though He knew no sin became sin for me while I was yet dead and an enemy, rose again from the grave and graciously, mercifully and lovingly brought me with Him that I might live eternally as His brother, bride and son.
Somehow “prime mover” just doesn’t really do it.
The fact of the matter is even on a secular/evidentialist level “atheists” (or agnostics, no real difference) talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and when it’s all said n done, as far as ultimate questions are concerned? They’ve said and explained absolutely nothing and reading a cereal box would have probably been a more productive use of the time. They consider the magnificent goose bump inducing phrase “I don’t know” as the pinnacle of wisdom and profundity as if they’ve actually said something with content.
Look man, you can jump and down, yell and scream, and declare people like me babbling, irrelevant intellectual antiques until the swallows come back to Capistrano. However, when you’re alone with yourself in those rare moments of clarity, you KNOW, waaaay down where you really live, that your self proclaimed epistemology of “I don’t know” renders any meaningful ONtology impossible. That is the unscratchable itch of His remaining image and likeness.
Either EVERYTHING gets defined in the mind numbing infinite intellect of the most high God and we receive that by faith or by faith settle for “I don’t know” anything at all and never will. There is no and cannot ever be a purely logical bridge between our minds and genuine knowledge. That’s something I would actually encourage you to think about.
And if I could go back to school, I would definitely get a degree in philosophy. Unfortunately, I never took any philosophy courses because at the time, due to my religious beliefs, I thought I already had all the answers.