[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What about an oscillating universe? Then the big bang is irrelevent. Why can’t that universe have God like properties?[/quote]
An oscillating universe? As in it goes through multiple big bangs?[/quote]
Yes[/quote]
Then it would still seem to have a beginning, which would demand a cause.
I believe it also goes against ockham’s razor. [/quote]
“Seem”.
Come on Chris.[/quote]
Well it’s a laughable theory anymore in the first place. But it still doesn’t answer the fundamental questions about it. Why is it there, why does it ‘oscillate’? What’s the mechanism of action behind all of that?
What people fail to realize is when they supposedly answer a question about ‘the begining’ they didn’t really solve the ‘how’ or ‘why’, they just kicked the can further down the metaphysical road. Even if we know exactly and precisely how and what caused this universe, we still don’t know what caused that.
For instance, say Dr. Krauss is right and dark energy and ‘the laws of physics’ caused the big bang and hence the universe, okay, what caused the dark energy? Where, or how did it get there? What caused the ‘laws of physics’? Solve that and then you have to ask the same things about those solutions… [/quote]
The universe and all in it could be an eternal state/entity, and in constant flux. While that is a tough ask intellectually to envisage, its no more challenging than having an eternal god, surely? The eternity of the matter at hand does not in any way reason for (or against) there being a prime mover. We simply do not have the tools either empirically or logically to prove either of the two right. Hence it’s a matter of faith and belief, not fact or logic.[/quote]
Not exactly. Eternity is not an issue. Time is a function of matter moving relative to space or other matter. It still does not remove dependence, which is also a form of causation. That’s why infinity, or eternal existence is irrelevent to the problem. In truth, lots of things exist eternally. Only the physical is bound by space and time. Most of what exists does not exist in the space-time continuum, only physical matter which is finite, not infinite. Its very possible that physical matter in it’s essence is infinite in existing, because it’s essence is metaphysical. What that doesn’t do is explain how or why. What you are left with is a pattern of existence and a problem in need of a solution. There is only one way to solve the problem. Hence this is a problem of reason and logic, not faith or belief. This is deduction and deduction deals with absolutes. If a deductive argument is true, it is true absolutely. So it is with the argument from contingency. The premises must be absolutely true and if they are the conclusion they lead is therefore absolutely true. They are and it is, hence it is a question of logic.
When it comes to surface experience like science and religion, yes a lot of faith and belief is employed on both sides of the issues…But at the core of everything are absolutes. Without that everything is arbitrary and nothing means anything and nothing can be accomplished because with out these base absolutes, nothing has any real meaning.[/quote]
I know by your previous posts that you’re a firm believer in that you have an irrefutable logical argument the points exclusively to the existence of god. While I happen to disagree with the argument from contingency as it applies to support that particular conclusion, I have no desire to try to argue against it.
While your conclusion may indeed be right, ie, that god exists and is the prime mover and cause of all existence, that particular argument for it is not remotely convincing to me.
[/quote]
What is it you need to be convinced of?
[quote]
Unless you have a version of the argument I’m not familiar with? pls post me a link or two that is representative of your position and I will wade thru them and see if I’m not working with the correct assumptions about your position.[/quote]
My positions are simple, everything about it is simple… I am not certain what you would need to be convinced of at this point it’s either true or it’s not. If it’s true and you’re still not convinced I certainly cannot force people to accept a proposition true or false. I can argue it’s true or it’s false and if one or the other is established, then accepting it or rejecting it is a subjective thing.
First, understand it’s not my argument I would love to have been that brilliant. Second,I used to be more flexible about it, but flexibility is untenable with this argument as with other deductive arguments. In deduction they are either absolutely true or absolutely false, mostly, kind of, almosts don’t exist. So any flexibility with respect to deduction is actually a human weakness and not part of the argument itself.
So why am I sure? Because it’s either true or it’s false. Absolutely no objection has ever been brought forth that has ever disproved it. Keep in mind you cannot weaken the argument, if part of it is false it’s all false. No objection has ever worked because it’s a true proposition. Since it’s true I have to be certain, without degree, but absolutely. The argument is true because it’s premises are true and they lead directly to conclusion and no other conclusion is possible…
I have studied this thing and I make a habit of looking for objections. Most of the time the objections are carefully worded strawmen… I was looking at this atheist book by some guy name George Smith and I was looking over his counter claims. His intent was to be dismissive, which is a common tactic. Then he keeps mentioning “the universe” which is where the strawman comes in. The argument isn’t concerned with ‘the universe’ it’s concerned with existence. Then his objections attack the idea that God directly ‘alakazammed’ the universe into existence…I agree with him that God didn’t do that, but that’s not an objection to the cosmological argument from contingency.
I got a link that discusses what the argument is not I think that might be more helpful than discussing what it is. It addresses all the very, very, very, very, very, annoyingly very, frequent false objections people come up with and clarifies a lot about it. When you learn what it isn’t than you know more about what it is…