[quote]pat wrote:
The absence of something is nothing, nada, less than zero, /dev/null/, niente, etc. A disbelief is still a belief. To answer nothing would require absence of the whole concept.[/quote]
So you believe that you don’t believe in Santa?
You really like to complicate things. I know that I don’t believe in Santa. It’s not a belief.
[quote]How probable is God?
Probable and likely. He told me so.[/quote]
With Headhunter, we now have two members who believe on the basis on auditory hallucinations.
You are aware that the cosmological argument does not hold up very well to scrutiny? That, to accept it, you basically have to fall back on faith and then you’re right back where you started. No evidence.
I did. Long ago. Also came up on all the various refutations of it.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
The absence of something is nothing, nada, less than zero, /dev/null/, niente, etc. A disbelief is still a belief. To answer nothing would require absence of the whole concept.
So you believe that you don’t believe in Santa?
You really like to complicate things. I know that I don’t believe in Santa. It’s not a belief.
How probable is God?
Probable and likely. He told me so.
With Headhunter, we now have two members who believe on the basis on auditory hallucinations.
I would present from the cosmological argument.
You are aware that the cosmological argument does not hold up very well to scrutiny? That, to accept it, you basically have to fall back on faith and then you’re right back where you started. No evidence.
[/quote]
Oh really? I am all ears refute it then, once and for all. Last I checked it hasn’t been refuted since Aristotle came up with it. If you got it figured out let me know…I submit you for the Nobel Prize.I can see the headlines now, “Garfield’s Teddy bear completely turns Aristotle on his head!”
I am aware of it’s weaknesses, but it hasn’t been disproven by any stretch of the imagination. There are two specific weakness to the cosmological argument. What are they?
Also, I said that was my base, my starting point. I wasn’t going to simply throw a 2500 year old argument at you let that be that. There have come to pass through reason and empirical science and theory things that actually server to support the cosmological argument’s week points.
Apparently not.
I though it was rather lyrical…Is there a problem with what I wrote?
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh really? I am all ears refute it then, once and for all.[/quote]
I’d need a little more meat than that. There are variations on the cosmological arguments; I’d also need to know how you describe God. His attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) and his relation with His Creation; whether you believe He intervenes to “tweak” stuff as we go along, etc. The refutations vary according to the arguments. To give a refutation of an argument you won’t articulate would require mind reading skills I don’t have.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Oh really? I am all ears refute it then, once and for all.
I’d need a little more meat than that. There are variations on the cosmological arguments; I’d also need to know how you describe God. His attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) and his relation with His Creation; whether you believe He intervenes to “tweak” stuff as we go along, etc. The refutations vary according to the arguments. To give a refutation of an argument you won’t articulate would require mind reading skills I don’t have.
[/quote]
Here are the two most common versions of the cosmological argument. Pick which ever you like.
His attributes are a different discussion. After all if there is no God, he has no attributes.[/quote]
Hmmm. Seems my original replied disappeared somewhere…? Ah well, here’s the gist of it:
From your link:
i Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.[/i]
For (1), it sounds right philosophically, but we have no way of knowing if it is true or not. We have no experience of “things” beginning to exist; only of changes in states and combinations. A new human life, for example, is not a “creation,” but simply the change from sperm/ovum to embryo to fetus to baby, etc. A new house “begins to exist” simply because all its component parts have been properly assembled and combined. No actual “creation” occurred; all the individual atoms that make up the house previously existed.
Not being able to confirm (1) makes (3) uncertain. There might be things that exist uncaused. The very “God” you’re trying to prove with this reasoning is Himself uncaused. If He’s not subject to the rule, why must the universe be?
(4) has the problem of automatically assuming that the cause of the universe must be God. The conclusion “then that cause is God” does not follow from the previous statements. For all we know, it could be a natural process. String Theory posits that universes are created when “branes” collide. Chaotic Inflation Theory has universes “bubbling out” of a chaotic quantum foam, etc. If we want to posit a personal, intelligent cause, then it might be simply a being who can create universes, but is not omniscient or omnipotent nor even good (the Demiurge hypothesis). He might worship his own God. It could also be many entities acting in concert to bring the universe into being, etc.
Basically, what the argument “proves” is that if the universe requires a cause, then it has a cause. In no way does it prove that the cause must be God.
So, with all those problem, (5) is as unproven as it ever was. If you think this argument “proves” God, and specifically the Judeo-Christian one, you need to turn in your skeptic card right away.
[quote]mmm. Seems my original replied disappeared somewhere…? Ah well, here’s the gist of it:
From your link:
(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
For (1), it sounds right philosophically, but we have no way of knowing if it is true or not. We have no experience of “things” beginning to exist; only of changes in states and combinations. A new human life, for example, is not a “creation,” but simply the change from sperm/ovum to embryo to fetus to baby, etc. A new house “begins to exist” simply because all its component parts have been properly assembled and combined. No actual “creation” occurred; all the individual atoms that make up the house previously existed.
[/quote]
Yes, at it’s most basic level material can neither be destroyed, nor created, but merely changed�?�I would take it down to the subatomic level though. The forms of atoms can changed or ‘destroyed’ as to no longer be atoms. However, in the case of a human, house atom or what not there is creation and destruction taking place. While the raw materials of an object existed prior to becoming that object, the object itself did not exist previously and if enough of it’s properties are removed it ceases being that object.
The properties that make something unique can be destroyed permanently, though it’s raw materials will continue to exist long after. Hence and creation and a destruction of physical objects, does happen. To properties of it cannot be destroyed, it’s “form” or design, and it�??s most basic raw materials.
Somebody said, but I forgot who, that if you could know all there is to know about a single object, no matter how simple, you will know everything. Obviously, this can’t be done. I am running out of time, I will address the rest later when I have some.
This is the good stuff…
[quote]pat wrote:
Yes, at it’s most basic level material can neither be destroyed, nor created, but merely changed.�I would take it down to the subatomic level though. The forms of atoms can changed or “destroyed” as to no longer be atoms.[/quote]
You can fission them apart or fuse them together, you can strip or add electrons to ionize them; but you’re still not creating nor obliterating anything, you’re just transforming matter to other matter while using or liberating energy. Entropy increases and everything balances out.
But the “creation” of a house involves “destruction” of raw materials. You might have a house, but only at the cost of not having that pile of bricks or that bundle of wood anymore. Nothing actually “came into” existence. Material was rearranged in a particular pattern that has a commonly agreed upon name: A house.
If the raw materials continue to exist, then no real destruction has taken place. Only rearrangement. Even if you burn a house down, all the atoms that were once part of it are still around somewhere, arranged in new molecules through combustion.
If you still have the floor plans, you can then rearrange raw materials into a replica of the initial house. You might say you’re “created” a house, but at the abstract material level, you’ve only rearranged matter that was already in existence.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Yes, at it’s most basic level material can neither be destroyed, nor created, but merely changed.�I would take it down to the subatomic level though. The forms of atoms can changed or “destroyed” as to no longer be atoms.
You can fission them apart or fuse them together, you can strip or add electrons to ionize them; but you’re still not creating nor obliterating anything, you’re just transforming matter to other matter while using or liberating energy. Entropy increases and everything balances out.
However, in the case of a human, house atom or what not there is creation and destruction taking place. While the raw materials of an object existed prior to becoming that object, the object itself did not exist previously and if enough of it’s properties are removed it ceases being that object.
But the “creation” of a house involves “destruction” of raw materials. You might have a house, but only at the cost of not having that pile of bricks or that bundle of wood anymore. Nothing actually “came into” existence. Material was rearranged in a particular pattern that has a commonly agreed upon name: A house.
The properties that make something unique can be destroyed permanently, though it’s raw materials will continue to exist long after. Hence and creation and a destruction of physical objects, does happen.
If the raw materials continue to exist, then no real destruction has taken place. Only rearrangement. Even if you burn a house down, all the atoms that were once part of it are still around somewhere, arranged in new molecules through combustion.
If you still have the floor plans, you can then rearrange raw materials into a replica of the initial house. You might say you’re “created” a house, but at the abstract material level, you’ve only rearranged matter that was already in existence.
[/quote]
The matter may be around in some form, but the properties that make a particular “thing” what it is, ceases to exist. Building blocks are not the thing they make up. You are not a collection of cells, you are a person. If I were to burn you at the stake, you would no longer be a person. You’d be ash, exhaust and energy.
BTW…What are protons, electrons and neutrons made of?
[quote]pat wrote:
The matter may be around in some form, but the properties that make a particular “thing” what it is, ceases to exist.[/quote]
Yes, but those properties are abstract concepts. While the house may cease to be called a house, the concept of “house” still exists.
Just because various particular assemblage of matter have convenient names to describe them, it doesn’t mean that they got “created.” All the matter and energy in the universe is there since the start. Hence, it’s very hard to draw conclusions about pure creation, since we have no experience of it.
Matterwise, you are a collection of cells. You started off as two cells and multiplied from there.
After being combusted, all the material that was originally present is still accounted for in different form. Nothing has been lost.
Quarks. Except for electrons, who are a fundamental particle in the Standard Model.
Alternatively, if String Theory ever pans out, the particles you mentioned would ultimately be reduced to 11-dimensional vibrating strings.
But ST is very much a work in progress and might fizzle out in favor of a better unified theory.
Hmmm. Seems my original replied disappeared somewhere…? Ah well, here’s the gist of it:
From your link:
i Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.[/i]
For (1), it sounds right philosophically, but we have no way of knowing if it is true or not. We have no experience of “things” beginning to exist; only of changes in states and combinations. A new human life, for example, is not a “creation,” but simply the change from sperm/ovum to embryo to fetus to baby, etc. A new house “begins to exist” simply because all its component parts have been properly assembled and combined. No actual “creation” occurred; all the individual atoms that make up the house previously existed.
Not being able to confirm (1) makes (3) uncertain. There might be things that exist uncaused. The very “God” you’re trying to prove with this reasoning is Himself uncaused. If He’s not subject to the rule, why must the universe be?
[/quote]
That was a poor presentation and obviously a highly condensed version, of the argument, but it will do. We obviously cannot know everything therefore we cannot substantiate the it was all caused except in the fact that existence requires cause. An thing physical or metaphysical was cause by something else. This can go on eternally except in fact it becomes a logical fallacy. If an infinite amount of premises is required to prove that even a single thing exists. You cannot support a conclusion with an endless amount of premesis because the support for the conclusion could never be completed. Mathematically it would probably look something like this (X/‘infinity’=1, ‘X’ being the conclusion, ‘infinity’ being the premises, ‘1’ equaling a complete argument). As you know infinity can forever approach, but never equal ‘1’.
Aristotle argued that to solve this problem there must have been and prime mover, or an uncaused cause.
As for there being multiple uncaused causes, that doesn’t seem to wash logically trace any cause and effect relationship back far enough they all start to develop commonalities with other cause and effect relationships which follow back to a more common causes for example: a rock came from the earth, which came from the solar system which came from the galaxy which came from an explosion some where else, etc. Apply the same exercise to an apple and you end up going to the same place as you continue to regress. Apply it to anything even and idea, and you will end up meeting the same causes as the rock as you continue to regress. All regressions go in the same “direction” if you will, not different ones.
Quite true. It is a giant leap from arguing that a “First Cause” is a all knowing loving God. We aren’t even close to that. But you can see why coalescing has killed many many trees. If you want your arguments to be really solid, you have to be really detailed. We are not close to that.
It does less than that. It argues that there must be a first cause not God, per se. What it does do it argues that there is a first cause and that cause has to exist “outside” that which it caused. It cannot be the same. So we have a first cause that in itself is not caused and therefore not equal to it’s resultant effect, but greater. For a creator of something cannot create something greater than itself. For instance, as talented as you may be, you cannot make something that is better than yourself, no matter how hard you try. That is where the “first cause” gets the beginning pangs of being “God”
[quote]pat wrote:
That was a poor presentation and obviously a highly condensed version, of the argument, but it will do.[/quote]
You supplied the link. Stop whining.
Yeah, we agree that something has to be self-existent to begin with.
We’re still at “if the universe requires a cause, then it has one.”
What we haven’t done is establish the nature of the cause. What’s more likely: That it’s another natural process like all the ones we find in nature, or that it’s the work of some fantastic deity who’s even harder to account for than the universe you’re trying to explain with it?
Ridiculous. I’ve written tons of computer programs that do quickly things that would take me months to do manually. They are much better than me at doing what they do.
We have chess and checker playing machines that cannot be beaten by men anymore.
Your claim that a creator cannot create something greater than itself does not stand.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
That was a poor presentation and obviously a highly condensed version, of the argument, but it will do.
You supplied the link. Stop whining.
We obviously cannot know everything therefore we cannot substantiate the it was all caused except in the fact that existence requires cause. An thing physical or metaphysical was cause by something else. This can go on eternally except in fact it becomes a logical fallacy.
Yeah, we agree that something has to be self-existent to begin with.
Quite true. It is a giant leap from arguing that a “First Cause” is a all knowing loving God. We aren’t even close to that. But you can see why coalescing has killed many many trees. If you want your arguments to be really solid, you have to be really detailed. We are not close to that.
We’re still at “if the universe requires a cause, then it has one.”
What we haven’t done is establish the nature of the cause. What’s more likely: That it’s another natural process like all the ones we find in nature, or that it’s the work of some fantastic deity who’s even harder to account for than the universe you’re trying to explain with it?
[/quote]
A natural processes would are caused, besides, if God does exist, what would be unnatural about that?
Sure it has one, but as I explained earlier that causer is independent of the chain of events which gives it certain properties things in the chain do not have. It cannot be caused or acted upon or changed.
I am sure you are quite the programmer, but are you saying that your programs are better than you? Or perhaps they are tools used to perform certain tasks? I crane is stronger than I, but it can’t feed me, it can wipe my ass, it cannot take care of my family, it cannot cut the grass, etc. It can lift shit and move shit. It’s a damn good tool, but it is not greater than me or the person who created it.
A computer can beat me at chess, but it cannot make me a sandwich, love my kids, fuck me, and wash my car…I can do all those things.
You can make tools to perform tasks for you, but the simple fact that a tool can do something you yourself cannot do does not make the tool better than your entire being. Is a hammer better than you because it can knock in a nail where as you cannot.
Programs, likewise are tools they perform the tasks you ask them to do. Or are you saying that the programs you write are better than your entire personage. It can drive better, love your wife better, lift more in the gym, take care or your guinea pigs, etc. Or do they do what you tell them to do and no more?
Hence, my claim that a creator cannot create something greater than itself does too stand. Take in to account the entirety of the creator and the creation.