Physics of the Afterlife

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
LOL! You’re logic blows. You haven’t done any research what so ever. You claim we’re crazy and you rely on all this science but then you put forth a bunch of theories that don’t even exist and there is no evidence what so ever…You believe in shit that has no evidence to back it up at all and is contrary to some of the best theories out there…What a joke.
[/quote]

This is your argument against a universe always being there and yet the same logic can apply to your ‘uncaused cause’. In your own words ‘it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…’[/quote]

You either do not understand the argument or are being deliberately obtuse because no where has any such horseshit been presented.

The cosmological argument is DEDUCTIVE. Do you understand what a deductive argument is? If so, you would be coming at this from a completely different angle. Although I do not think he has succeeded, forlife has made a damn good effort to punch holes in the cosmological argument in the proper manner, by attacking its premises.

It is becoming more and more clear, to me, at least, that you either have not read or not understood the cosmological argument, that you already had your mind made up when you got here, and that ANY new proposition against the cosmological argument, however outlandish, will be met by you with approving brow furrowing and head nodding and comments like, “I can’t fault any of its logic.”

This is the kind of crap that long time members have been complaining about in reference to the recent decline in the quality of posting here at PWI. Trust me, over the past year or so there has probably been more discussion on this one topic than almost any other here. It is blindingly clear you are treading water and sinking fast when trying to attack this concept. You should sit back and read more and understand the conversation you are taking part in before jumping in feet first thinking that everything will just be okay. [/quote]

Long time member? I’ve been a member of this site longer than you.

Also I took a direct quote from Pat. That was his logic and his argument. Not mine.

Maybe try reading the whole thread. I’ve maintained an open mind all along and repeatedly said I think both arguments are problematic and both are possible.
[/quote]

Don’t forget TTF that without a first cause the foundation for their beliefs is gone.

Pat acts as if he doesn’t understand what you’re/we’re talking about, and to a lesser extent Cortes too, but the idea of an uncaused universe existing in different energy states cannot be contemplated for that reason.

Beliefs hinge on the biggest “If” possible, and when that “If” can’t be sustained beliefs falter.

Please stick around regardless of anyone’s opinion.

122

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
LOL! You’re logic blows. You haven’t done any research what so ever. You claim we’re crazy and you rely on all this science but then you put forth a bunch of theories that don’t even exist and there is no evidence what so ever…You believe in shit that has no evidence to back it up at all and is contrary to some of the best theories out there…What a joke.
[/quote]

This is your argument against a universe always being there and yet the same logic can apply to your ‘uncaused cause’. In your own words ‘it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…’[/quote]

You either do not understand the argument or are being deliberately obtuse because no where has any such horseshit been presented.

The cosmological argument is DEDUCTIVE. Do you understand what a deductive argument is? If so, you would be coming at this from a completely different angle. Although I do not think he has succeeded, forlife has made a damn good effort to punch holes in the cosmological argument in the proper manner, by attacking its premises.

It is becoming more and more clear, to me, at least, that you either have not read or not understood the cosmological argument, that you already had your mind made up when you got here, and that ANY new proposition against the cosmological argument, however outlandish, will be met by you with approving brow furrowing and head nodding and comments like, “I can’t fault any of its logic.”

This is the kind of crap that long time members have been complaining about in reference to the recent decline in the quality of posting here at PWI. Trust me, over the past year or so there has probably been more discussion on this one topic than almost any other here. It is blindingly clear you are treading water and sinking fast when trying to attack this concept. You should sit back and read more and understand the conversation you are taking part in before jumping in feet first thinking that everything will just be okay. [/quote]

Long time member? I’ve been a member of this site longer than you.

Also I took a direct quote from Pat. That was his logic and his argument. Not mine.

Maybe try reading the whole thread. I’ve maintained an open mind all along and repeatedly said I think both arguments are problematic and both are possible.
[/quote]

Been reading since post 1, thanks.

Your join date can be 2002 and it still won’t have any bearing upon what I actually said. Long time member means those of us who have consistently been in PWI for a few years now and have been hashing and rehashing these exact arguments over and over. I have not seen your name here until recently, despite your join date, and I am basing my statements upon what you have demonstrated through them. You started out posing as if your mind was “open,” (whatever that means), but it has become increasingly evident that it is only “open” to points of view that support the worldview you’ve already decided is true. That’s fine, I have no problem with that. I am taking issue with the fact that you are not even trying to attack the PREMISES of the cosmological argument.

Take ephrem, who just spoke up for you. He’s another poster I almost never agree with but highly respect and like a lot. While ostensibly doing nothing more than kindly taking your side and offering you a word of support, he was upright enough to lob a quick curve ball inside the batter’s box, where it belongs. Your maintaining that the same logic that was used to refute an uncaused universe (a contingent entity) can be applied to the Uncaused Cause (by definition non-contingent) shows that you either do not understand this argument, deductive argument structure, how to argue in the first place, or possibly all three.

123

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
LOL! You’re logic blows. You haven’t done any research what so ever. You claim we’re crazy and you rely on all this science but then you put forth a bunch of theories that don’t even exist and there is no evidence what so ever…You believe in shit that has no evidence to back it up at all and is contrary to some of the best theories out there…What a joke.
[/quote]

This is your argument against a universe always being there and yet the same logic can apply to your ‘uncaused cause’. In your own words ‘it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…’[/quote]

You either do not understand the argument or are being deliberately obtuse because no where has any such horseshit been presented.

The cosmological argument is DEDUCTIVE. Do you understand what a deductive argument is? If so, you would be coming at this from a completely different angle. Although I do not think he has succeeded, forlife has made a damn good effort to punch holes in the cosmological argument in the proper manner, by attacking its premises.

It is becoming more and more clear, to me, at least, that you either have not read or not understood the cosmological argument, that you already had your mind made up when you got here, and that ANY new proposition against the cosmological argument, however outlandish, will be met by you with approving brow furrowing and head nodding and comments like, “I can’t fault any of its logic.”

This is the kind of crap that long time members have been complaining about in reference to the recent decline in the quality of posting here at PWI. Trust me, over the past year or so there has probably been more discussion on this one topic than almost any other here. It is blindingly clear you are treading water and sinking fast when trying to attack this concept. You should sit back and read more and understand the conversation you are taking part in before jumping in feet first thinking that everything will just be okay. [/quote]

Long time member? I’ve been a member of this site longer than you.

Also I took a direct quote from Pat. That was his logic and his argument. Not mine.

Maybe try reading the whole thread. I’ve maintained an open mind all along and repeatedly said I think both arguments are problematic and both are possible.
[/quote]

Don’t forget TTF that without a first cause the foundation for their beliefs is gone.

Pat acts as if he doesn’t understand what you’re/we’re talking about, and to a lesser extent Cortes too, but the idea of an uncaused universe existing in different energy states cannot be contemplated for that reason.

Beliefs hinge on the biggest “If” possible, and when that “If” can’t be sustained beliefs falter.

Please stick around regardless of anyone’s opinion. [/quote]

Ephrem, you are totally right. In fact, you just defined the deductive argument for us.

So, whenever you guys are able to provide that one piece of evidence that is all that is required we can move past that “if.” So far, though, no one, not one person, ever, has been able to provide anything other than increasingly imaginative scenarios without any empirical foundation whatsoever.

124

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
Pat,

You’re viewing infinity as a circular repeat. That is not infinity. There were many arguments and explanations of infinity in the link Forlife provided.

You are looking at this from such an absolute view I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for an interesting discussion anyway.[/quote]

No, I look as infinity as infinite. An infinite regression is circular…Again this is basic logic. An infinite regress /= infinity.

If you oppose what I propose you have to prove me wrong. If you can produce an argument that can prove it wrong, then I will accept it. It hasn’t been proven wrong in 2 millennia, the argument from contingency is over 1500 years old…That’s a good track record.

The argument has been scrutinized in every way possible and has withstood it. Really, what’s the criteria for accepting the validity of an argument, before people consider that it just may be that damn good.
Lets see:
Accurate premises - check
a conclusion that flows directly from the premises - check.
Premises that have never been proven false - check
Been scrutinized by really smart people. - check, way more than any other philosphical argument in the history of man.
withstood the test of time - check.

I mean really, what does it take? [/quote]

That’s the logical fallacy I’m talking about. Just because an argument hasn’t been proven wrong doesn’t mean it has been proven right. You cannot conclude that something must be right solely because it hasn’t been proven wrong.

Furthermore, the cosmological argument has indeed been successfully challenged over the centuries (See Russell, Hume, Kant, Craig, Hawking, Swinburne, etc.). Many disagree that its premises are axiomatic, and many believe that it is not deductively valid. Obviously, you can agree or disagree with their arguments, but they stand by these arguments, and in my opinion their criticisms have merit.

Does that mean the cosmological argument has been definitively disproven? Not at all. But there are solid reasons for questioning its soundness and validity, and it’s far too premature to conclude that it MUST be true.

The premise that gives me the most concern at this point is that there must have been a first cause, which hopefully we can discuss further.

125

[quote]forlife wrote:

Furthermore, the cosmological argument has indeed been successfully challenged over the centuries
[/quote]

Heh. First time I’ve heard that turn of phrase, I must say.

So if I “successfully challenge” Mirko Filipovic to a fight, does that mean I can say he didn’t beat the shit out of me afterward?

126

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, just so we’re on the same page:

So you believe an infinite series does exist? As in, an infinitely retroactive series of causes and effects rather than a series beginning with a First Cause?[/quote]

The series is also caused…There is a reason it a series and a reason it’s infinite. Nice try though.[/quote]

I would like to discuss that, but before we do can you answer the question?

Do you believe an infinite series, with no first cause, exists? You said earlier that you believe an infinite series exists, but I know you also believe in a first cause. This seems contradictory, and I need to understand your position before we can discuss further.

127

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
LOL! You’re logic blows. You haven’t done any research what so ever. You claim we’re crazy and you rely on all this science but then you put forth a bunch of theories that don’t even exist and there is no evidence what so ever…You believe in shit that has no evidence to back it up at all and is contrary to some of the best theories out there…What a joke.
[/quote]

This is your argument against a universe always being there and yet the same logic can apply to your ‘uncaused cause’. In your own words ‘it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…’[/quote]

You either do not understand the argument or are being deliberately obtuse because no where has any such horseshit been presented.

The cosmological argument is DEDUCTIVE. Do you understand what a deductive argument is? If so, you would be coming at this from a completely different angle. Although I do not think he has succeeded, forlife has made a damn good effort to punch holes in the cosmological argument in the proper manner, by attacking its premises.

It is becoming more and more clear, to me, at least, that you either have not read or not understood the cosmological argument, that you already had your mind made up when you got here, and that ANY new proposition against the cosmological argument, however outlandish, will be met by you with approving brow furrowing and head nodding and comments like, “I can’t fault any of its logic.”

This is the kind of crap that long time members have been complaining about in reference to the recent decline in the quality of posting here at PWI. Trust me, over the past year or so there has probably been more discussion on this one topic than almost any other here. It is blindingly clear you are treading water and sinking fast when trying to attack this concept. You should sit back and read more and understand the conversation you are taking part in before jumping in feet first thinking that everything will just be okay. [/quote]

Long time member? I’ve been a member of this site longer than you.

Also I took a direct quote from Pat. That was his logic and his argument. Not mine.

Maybe try reading the whole thread. I’ve maintained an open mind all along and repeatedly said I think both arguments are problematic and both are possible.
[/quote]

Don’t forget TTF that without a first cause the foundation for their beliefs is gone.

Pat acts as if he doesn’t understand what you’re/we’re talking about, and to a lesser extent Cortes too, but the idea of an uncaused universe existing in different energy states cannot be contemplated for that reason.

Beliefs hinge on the biggest “If” possible, and when that “If” can’t be sustained beliefs falter.

Please stick around regardless of anyone’s opinion. [/quote]

Thanks ephrem. I will stick around. I tend to read more than I post most of the time because I like my views to be challenged.

I’m not sure why anyone would read PWI if they didn’t.

128

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Your maintaining that the same logic that was used to refute an uncaused universe (a contingent entity) can be applied to the Uncaused Cause (by definition non-contingent) shows that you either do not understand this argument, deductive argument structure, how to argue in the first place, or possibly all three. [/quote]

I understand the argument just fine. My point is only that the concept of an uncaused cause is just as imaginative as an uncaused universe.

Do you believe in an infinite series?

129

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Don’t forget TTF that without a first cause the foundation for their beliefs is gone.

Pat acts as if he doesn’t understand what you’re/we’re talking about, and to a lesser extent Cortes too, but the idea of an uncaused universe existing in different energy states cannot be contemplated for that reason.

Beliefs hinge on the biggest “If” possible, and when that “If” can’t be sustained beliefs falter.

Please stick around regardless of anyone’s opinion. [/quote]

Ephrem, you are totally right. In fact, you just defined the deductive argument for us.

So, whenever you guys are able to provide that one piece of evidence that is all that is required we can move past that “if.” So far, though, no one, not one person, ever, has been able to provide anything other than increasingly imaginative scenarios without any empirical foundation whatsoever. [/quote]

Neither has your side, but the imaginative scenarios without empirical evidence, e.i. the Bible, is nevertheless accepted as proof.

You have to maintain the cognitive dissonance despite the lack of evidence, yet dismiss equally valid theories because of lack of evidence.

So i say, we’re both wrong [or can’t know whether we’re right] and i’m fine with that.

130

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

Thanks ephrem. I will stick around. I tend to read more than I post most of the time because I like my views to be challenged.

I’m not sure why anyone would read PWI if they didn’t.[/quote]

Willingness to have your opinions or beliefs challenged indicates that you’re also willing to accept you could be wrong. Religious beliefs don’t have the same power if one is willing to accept they could be wrong.

And that’s rare on PWI.

131

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I understand the argument just fine. My point is only that the concept of an uncaused cause is just as imaginative as an uncaused universe.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter how imaginative one is compared to the other. It is a deductive argument. All that matters is that you can prove one of the premises wrong. So far, no one, not one person, ever, has been able to accomplish this.

[quote]
Do you believe in an infinite series?[/quote]

Not sure what this is but if it pertains to time or the Kalam Cosmological Argument then it’s a moot point from the start, as the cosmological argument we have been discussing for the past couple of years, as I understand it, has been the argument from contingency.

If the infinite series pertains to contingency, then please do explain.

132

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Don’t forget TTF that without a first cause the foundation for their beliefs is gone.

Pat acts as if he doesn’t understand what you’re/we’re talking about, and to a lesser extent Cortes too, but the idea of an uncaused universe existing in different energy states cannot be contemplated for that reason.

Beliefs hinge on the biggest “If” possible, and when that “If” can’t be sustained beliefs falter.

Please stick around regardless of anyone’s opinion. [/quote]

Ephrem, you are totally right. In fact, you just defined the deductive argument for us.

So, whenever you guys are able to provide that one piece of evidence that is all that is required we can move past that “if.” So far, though, no one, not one person, ever, has been able to provide anything other than increasingly imaginative scenarios without any empirical foundation whatsoever. [/quote]

Neither has your side, but the imaginative scenarios without empirical evidence, e.i. the Bible, is nevertheless accepted as proof.

You have to maintain the cognitive dissonance despite the lack of evidence, yet dismiss equally valid theories because of lack of evidence.

So i say, we’re both wrong [or can’t know whether we’re right] and i’m fine with that.

[/quote]

I’m honestly not looking to debate with you again (no offense, but it’s exhausting :wink: but I just wanted to clarify that no one on this site, at least to my knowledge, has ever once claimed that because the cosmological argument is deductively sound, therefore like, the Bible, and stuff.

And “our side” doesn’t have to provide the “if.” That’s yall’s obligation. We provided a sound deductive argument. Until someone can prove otherwise, our “if” is an “is.” Don’t think so? Well let’s see your “if.”

It’s funny, you never hear people questioning mathematics, but you provide an equivalent argument with equally sound premises that calls into question one of their most deeply held convictions and all of a sudden you get a veritable three ring circus of contortionist logic.

Not necessarily talking about you, ephrem, and I did note your last sentence.

133

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, just so we’re on the same page:

So you believe an infinite series does exist? As in, an infinitely retroactive series of causes and effects rather than a series beginning with a First Cause?[/quote]

The series is also caused…There is a reason it a series and a reason it’s infinite. Nice try though.[/quote]

I would like to discuss that, but before we do can you answer the question?

Do you believe an infinite series, with no first cause, exists? You said earlier that you believe an infinite series exists, but I know you also believe in a first cause. This seems contradictory, and I need to understand your position before we can discuss further.[/quote]

I don’t know why you find it contradictory? A series as a repetitive set limited variables. With in the series there can be a endless cycle, but that is not with out cause. There’s no possible way for the series to exist with out a cause, even if it’s endless. I think your thinking about this in two dimensions. Even if the universe as we know it is an endless series, it’s not that way for no reason. I assume you were going to apply this to the universe at large. But like I have explained a million times before, it doesn’t matter if the universe is endless as in series or accordion universe theories about. It being cyclical or repetative is not a sufficient explanation for it’s existence. All that refers to is it’s behavior…And if you have paid attention, it’s a theory that’s been frowned upon. The problem is entropy. The universe is expected to continue to exist for ever, but it is expected to loose all its potential energy and become a void of death, dead particles that do nothing. Dark, dank, and still. It is not expected to collapse upon itself and repeat.

134

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Neither has your side, but the imaginative scenarios without empirical evidence, e.i. the Bible, is nevertheless accepted as proof.

You have to maintain the cognitive dissonance despite the lack of evidence, yet dismiss equally valid theories because of lack of evidence.

So i say, we’re both wrong [or can’t know whether we’re right] and i’m fine with that.

[/quote]

I’m honestly not looking to debate with you again (no offense, but it’s exhausting :wink: but I just wanted to clarify that no one on this site, at least to my knowledge, has ever once claimed that because the cosmological argument is deductively sound, therefore like, the Bible, and stuff.

And “our side” doesn’t have to provide the “if.” That’s yall’s obligation. We provided a sound deductive argument. Until someone can prove otherwise, our “if” is an “is.” Don’t think so? Well let’s see your “if.”

It’s funny, you never hear people questioning mathematics, but you provide an equivalent argument with equally sound premises that calls into question one of their most deeply held convictions and all of a sudden you get a veritable three ring circus of contortionist logic.

Not necessarily talking about you, ephrem, and I did note your last sentence. [/quote]

I asked pat if he had evidence for an afterlife, and he said he can’t know that an afterlife exists but if one exists, etc…etc…

Now, ofcourse i can’t offer proof that an afterlife, or God, does not exist. I can merely point out the absence of proof that an afterlife, or God, exists, and base my conclusions on that.

The cosmological argument is, imo, flawed due to the simple fact that it leads to a conclusion about something that exists outside of the chain of logic that preceeded the conclusion.

The basic assumption that infinite regression is impossible has not [yet] been proven to be true. That’s a thin foundation to build your church on.

Anyway, i must say that, one of the reasons i engage in these discussions is that i find it riveting, not exhausting (: Are you eating enough carbs?

135

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Don’t forget TTF that without a first cause the foundation for their beliefs is gone.

Pat acts as if he doesn’t understand what you’re/we’re talking about, and to a lesser extent Cortes too, but the idea of an uncaused universe existing in different energy states cannot be contemplated for that reason.

Beliefs hinge on the biggest “If” possible, and when that “If” can’t be sustained beliefs falter.

Please stick around regardless of anyone’s opinion. [/quote]

Ephrem, you are totally right. In fact, you just defined the deductive argument for us.

So, whenever you guys are able to provide that one piece of evidence that is all that is required we can move past that “if.” So far, though, no one, not one person, ever, has been able to provide anything other than increasingly imaginative scenarios without any empirical foundation whatsoever. [/quote]

Neither has your side, but the imaginative scenarios without empirical evidence, e.i. the Bible, is nevertheless accepted as proof.

You have to maintain the cognitive dissonance despite the lack of evidence, yet dismiss equally valid theories because of lack of evidence.

So i say, we’re both wrong [or can’t know whether we’re right] and i’m fine with that.

[/quote]

I’m honestly not looking to debate with you again (no offense, but it’s exhausting :wink: but I just wanted to clarify that no one on this site, at least to my knowledge, has ever once claimed that because the cosmological argument is deductively sound, therefore like, the Bible, and stuff.

And “our side” doesn’t have to provide the “if.” That’s yall’s obligation. We provided a sound deductive argument. Until someone can prove otherwise, our “if” is an “is.” Don’t think so? Well let’s see your “if.”

It’s funny, you never hear people questioning mathematics, but you provide an equivalent argument with equally sound premises that calls into question one of their most deeply held convictions and all of a sudden you get a veritable three ring circus of contortionist logic.

Not necessarily talking about you, ephrem, and I did note your last sentence. [/quote]

Failure to definitively disprove an argument doesn’t change it from “if” to “is”; it just protects the argument from “isn’t”.

136

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, just so we’re on the same page:

So you believe an infinite series does exist? As in, an infinitely retroactive series of causes and effects rather than a series beginning with a First Cause?[/quote]

The series is also caused…There is a reason it a series and a reason it’s infinite. Nice try though.[/quote]

I would like to discuss that, but before we do can you answer the question?

Do you believe an infinite series, with no first cause, exists? You said earlier that you believe an infinite series exists, but I know you also believe in a first cause. This seems contradictory, and I need to understand your position before we can discuss further.[/quote]

I don’t know why you find it contradictory? A series as a repetitive set limited variables. With in the series there can be a endless cycle, but that is not with out cause. There’s no possible way for the series to exist with out a cause, even if it’s endless. I think your thinking about this in two dimensions. Even if the universe as we know it is an endless series, it’s not that way for no reason. I assume you were going to apply this to the universe at large. But like I have explained a million times before, it doesn’t matter if the universe is endless as in series or accordion universe theories about. It being cyclical or repetative is not a sufficient explanation for it’s existence. All that refers to is it’s behavior…And if you have paid attention, it’s a theory that’s been frowned upon. The problem is entropy. The universe is expected to continue to exist for ever, but it is expected to loose all its potential energy and become a void of death, dead particles that do nothing. Dark, dank, and still. It is not expected to collapse upon itself and repeat. [/quote]

It’s contradictory, because by definition if a linear series is infinite, there cannot be a first member of that series. If there is no first member, there cannot be a first cause.

Do you believe a linear infinite series exists, or not?

137

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Oh now, don’t get your panties in a wad a lot of you atheists make bold proclamations about the universe with out basis in fact or evidence […]

We can observe the universe, it is there. We don’t have to assume it.
So it’s not circular to furthermore assume that this was always the case.
It’s just a prudent, safe assumption if we have nothing better.
[/quote]

Safe to assume? So you can’t prove anything? So you arrogantly throw out assumptions as pure fact with out any evidence for it? It is to laugh!
So what if you can observe it? It doesn’t mean anything that it current state is the way it always was and always will be…Besides, this observable universe had a beginning.

It circular to believe that the universe is there because it’s there. That is a fallacious and stupid argument.

A universe existing for no reason is just plain dumb, it’s way more logical to propose something from something rather than something from nothing. The universe existing doesn’t explain it’s existence. It just explains an observation, which tells us nothing.

You do not have to observe things for them to be true. Ever seen a number 4? Not the arabic symbol used to represent it, an actual number 4…

You say the universe exists because it exists, any 3rd grader knows that is a fallacious argument. It’s called circular reasoning. It doesn’t answer the question, it says nothing what so ever.
So if you believe the universe exists eternally with out cause, you need to make an argument to support this impossible claim.

You think the universe exists as a result of nothing. Toss around your lofty claims, you’ll ever be able to prove that horse shit.

That’s the smartest thing you’ve said yet! Wow there may be some hope…Neither can you, btw…

The really smart greek dudes proposed a cause for the universe that has never been disproven…Well except for you. I mean after over 2000 thousand years who knew it was you to turn cosmology on it’s ear…Let’s hear the winning argument:
“The universe is here, because it’s here!” ← Oh nevermind that’s idiotic.

138

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so a universe with a begining and an age was started but it wasn’t really started, it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…
LOL! You’re logic blows. You haven’t done any research what so ever. You claim we’re crazy and you rely on all this science but then you put forth a bunch of theories that don’t even exist and there is no evidence what so ever…You believe in shit that has no evidence to back it up at all and is contrary to some of the best theories out there…What a joke.
[/quote]

This is your argument against a universe always being there and yet the same logic can apply to your ‘uncaused cause’. In your own words ‘it’s just kinda there and it started for no reason what so ever out of nothing what so ever… Yeah, theists are the crazy ones…’[/quote]

Uh no, I didn’t make an argument against the ‘eternal universe’ theory, despite an utter lack of evidence for such a notion. I argued that saying the universe is eternal only describes it’s behaviour not it’s reason for being.
It doesn’t matter if the universe is eternal or not, there is a reason, a cause for it’s existence. The universe exists because _____. Which exists because _____. which exists because ____. Time is irrelevant to the conversation.

My argument against an eternal universe theory is an utter lack of evidence. Nor is it the current thought. My latest post to FL explains that in more detail…I don’t see need to repeat it.

139

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I understand the argument just fine. My point is only that the concept of an uncaused cause is just as imaginative as an uncaused universe.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter how imaginative one is compared to the other. It is a deductive argument. All that matters is that you can prove one of the premises wrong. So far, no one, not one person, ever, has been able to accomplish this.

I’ll use deductive reasoning since you like it so much.

1.Everything is caused by something.
2.Therefore everything must be caused.
3.Things exist, therefore there must be something that caused things to exist.
4.That something needs to be caused.

The infinity solution believes this goes on infinitely (obviously).

Your arguments solution is to say there is an ‘uncaused cause’ but if the first statement ‘everything is caused’ is true (which your argument relies upon) then how can you have something (an uncaused cause) that isn’t caused?

It’s self defeating.

I know you will throw back:

1.Things exists.
2.Everything is caused by something else.
3.There must have been something that existed first. (an assumption)
4.Nothing existed before this to cause this to exist.
5.There must have been something that wasn’t caused but existed. (But wait no.2 of your own deductive reasoning states that ‘everything is caused by something else’. It didn’t mention any exemptions).

You will then say its an UNCAUSED cause just like I will say Infinity means there doesn’t have to be something that existed first.

…This discussion is starting to feel like it will go on infinitely.

140

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Anyway, i must say that, one of the reasons i engage in these discussions is that i find it riveting, not exhausting (: Are you eating enough carbs?[/quote]

Too many. And spending too much time on the internet, as you can probably see.