You’ve arrived at a conclusion, based in logic, that cannot be tested or verified, ever.
This is unsatisfactory to me, altough it would be foolish of me to deny that there’s a possibility an uncaused cause exists. But because this position can never be proven to be correct i see no use in contemplating it’s veracity.
And that, i guess, concludes our discussion on the subject.
[/quote]
Not being a scientific experiment, “testing or verifying” is not applicable here. It’s either correct or it’s not.
Most things cannot be proven, yet you accept them almost unquestioned.
Ofcourse matter can exist of it’s own accord. It exists, doesn’t it? That’s your proof.
Now give me proof of your uncaused cause.
[/quote]
It existing and having no ability to bring about it’s own existence is my proof.[/quote]
Not having proof is proof of not having proof. It doesn’t prove that of which you have no proof.
[/quote]
So where’s your proof? I have asked for proofs for your singularity thingy, your proof for randomness your proof for chaos, you have provided none. So why should anybody be obliged to provide you proof? It’s a legitimate question, is it not?[/quote]
Do you accept the Cosmic Background Radiation as proof of the Big Bang?
[/quote]
I certainly accept the possibility, though I don’t know that the definitive line has been drawn, but it sounds good.[/quote]
There’s a lot of actual science pointing in that direction though.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you don’t believe your god is eternal, then what created your god?[/quote]
I don’t claim he’s eternal. Never have. and you are attempted to apply the rules of the universe to something outside the universe twice in that one sentence. I’ll let you see if you can figure out where. Hint I’ve already pointed it out multiple times in previous posts.[/quote]
hmmm, weird.[/quote]
Not subject to time is different than eternal. Eternal means still part of time.
Maybe I can better explain what I’m talking about with externally applying rules…
Say I’m a programmer (creator) and I write a program that creates a digital universe. In this universe I only program in the colors red and blue. Then lets say I give rise to intelligent beings in my universe.
Now, 2 of these intelligent beings are discussing how they might have come to be. One is claiming that the creator must be either red or blue. The other is telling him he is an idiot for attempting to limit their cause to the way they experience their own world.
The guy trying to apply the rules of the program to the programmer is wrong. It is flawed logic. A programmer is not subject to the programs he writes. Time is a component of this universe, you cannot apply the rules of it to something that created it. Just like the people in my little universe could have no concept of green or yellow, I don’t know what it really would mean to be outside of time. BUT it is still wrong to limit the scope of your beliefs based on the flawed logic that a programmer would be subject to his program.
But forelife can go ahead and claim god is blue and/or red. He just needs to stop claiming it’s part of my argument and demanding that I need to explain it.
[/quote]
In the scope of this universe as we know it, it is possible to run out of representations of numbers because you end up running out of existence. However, Math, numbers in general are metaphysical concepts with physical representations and the metaphysical parts never.
I think both you and RG make good and interesting points, but I am going to stay out of this one…
[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, I’m apparently not making myself clear. Let’s try again.
My assertion is that space-time has always existed, and will always exist. I don’t ask you to accept this as indisputable fact. I only ask that you acknowledge it as a viable possibility.
If you refuse to even accept this possibility, please provide evidence supporting this refusal. How do you know that space-time has not always existed?
Saying that everything has a cause doesn’t cut it. If space-time has always existed, obviously it doesn’t have a cause. Even the Christians claim that an uncaused cause exists, which disproves your contention that everything has a cause. [/quote]
if youd read my posts youd see that i have not only addmitted it as a possibility but have acknowleged that i believe the universe (matter and such) are infinite in time. ive said this multiple times.
however, as ive noted a cause for the universe (time) cannot be bound by the rules of time. it can be infinite and still have a cause. the “eternal” nature of matter literally doesnt matter (pun intended) in my postulate.
You’ve arrived at a conclusion, based in logic, that cannot be tested or verified, ever.
This is unsatisfactory to me, altough it would be foolish of me to deny that there’s a possibility an uncaused cause exists. But because this position can never be proven to be correct i see no use in contemplating it’s veracity.
And that, i guess, concludes our discussion on the subject.
[/quote]
Not being a scientific experiment, “testing or verifying” is not applicable here. It’s either correct or it’s not.
Most things cannot be proven, yet you accept them almost unquestioned.[/quote]
“Correct” does not make it true.
What things can’t be proven yet i accept them almost unquestioned?
Well it was a cute article. I am sure there are a dozen theories a week that come up… Can you see in that article, the stuff I would call out? By this time you know I am hopelessly predictable.