[quote]twiceborn wrote:
The only true religion in the original meaning of the word is pure entheogenic drug use.
Religion literally means “to bring back into connection with”, and is fundamentally the same term as “Yoga”. That being said, NONE of the modern “isms” is actually practicing “religion” these days.
Fairytale books of the past and absurd, outdated systems of behavior are not religion, they’re cults.
All the modern “isms” stem from the original systems of spirituality which we refer to these days as indigenous shamanism. The original goal of every one of these “isms” was to allow small groups of initiates a chance to connect themselves directly to the wheelwork of nature and personally experience the hidden aspects of consciousness only available through drug use, ritualism, tantric dance, etc.
I’d wager that just about no one on this board has ever experienced any true religious practice. Raising this question here is like asking the blind to explain a sunrise.
[/quote]
I like you. [/quote]He likes you too. By the power vested in me as a T-Cell Alpha Sheriff I now pronounce you blind and deaf. Come on. That was at least kinda funny. No?
[/quote]
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Definitely funny :)[/quote]Trib takes a bow and thanks the one man crowd.
I was jist talkin about you(positively). You’ll tell me not to, but I feel bad I just have not been able to answer you yet man. Though I certainly will. Good to see ya drop in.
[/quote]
Haha Indeed, don’t feel bad. I do await your response though, but I know you are a busy man.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:What does the founding of this Nation have to do anything about anything?[/quote]People keep talking about how my beliefs are strange and fringe and not held by very many people which is true. They were though. When we were rising like a rocketship as a nation. They were. Go ahead Chris. Attempt to deny that. Sloth wrote:02-10-2012, 01:08 AM[quote]<<< Newsflash, there’s no more spiritually dead faith in this country than your beloved Calvinistic-Puritan-whatchamadoodle. Oh yes, Tirib, ‘your folks’ certainly were the face of early America, for the most part. But, look at their descendents now. Look at those folks’ country now. Eviscerated. Hollowed out. Their sons and daughters secularists. Where still religious, splintered into a multitude of squabbling denominations who’ve apparently arrived at different understandings, via sola scripture. >>>[/quote]You still do not understand dearest Christopher the IMMENSE implications of Sloth’s quite honorable (on one hand) concession here. Do you? He does. When we can get KingKai back and things fall into place by the providence of the Lord we will go into ecclesiology and authority. KingKai will probably side with you more than me which will be unfortunate and a drag for me because he is very VERY capable.(not to slight anyone else) It will be the most substantive and consequential religious discussion here yet and will draw many spectators. I am thinking that it will not be very much fun for me. I’d rather be united with everybody given the personal choice. It will also not change any of the usual players minds, but others will be watching and seeds will be planted.
[/quote]
Catholicism civilized the Western Hemisphere. It had a pretty good control on a large portion of the Eastern Hemisphere until ~1000.
You mean the implication of Sloth telling the truth? Yeah, he doesn’t have to confess another sin when he goes to confession.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:What does the founding of this Nation have to do anything about anything?[/quote]People keep talking about how my beliefs are strange and fringe and not held by very many people which is true. They were though. When we were rising like a rocketship as a nation. They were. Go ahead Chris. Attempt to deny that. Sloth wrote:02-10-2012, 01:08 AM[quote]<<< Newsflash, there’s no more spiritually dead faith in this country than your beloved Calvinistic-Puritan-whatchamadoodle. Oh yes, Tirib, ‘your folks’ certainly were the face of early America, for the most part. But, look at their descendents now. Look at those folks’ country now. Eviscerated. Hollowed out. Their sons and daughters secularists. Where still religious, splintered into a multitude of squabbling denominations who’ve apparently arrived at different understandings, via sola scripture. >>>[/quote]You still do not understand dearest Christopher the IMMENSE implications of Sloth’s quite honorable (on one hand) concession here. Do you? He does. When we can get KingKai back and things fall into place by the providence of the Lord we will go into ecclesiology and authority. KingKai will probably side with you more than me which will be unfortunate and a drag for me because he is very VERY capable.(not to slight anyone else) It will be the most substantive and consequential religious discussion here yet and will draw many spectators. I am thinking that it will not be very much fun for me. I’d rather be united with everybody given the personal choice. It will also not change any of the usual players minds, but others will be watching and seeds will be planted.
[/quote]
Catholicism civilized the Western Hemisphere. It had a pretty good control on a large portion of the Eastern Hemisphere until ~1000.
You mean the implication of Sloth telling the truth? Yeah, he doesn’t have to confess another sin when he goes to confession.[/quote]
These sorts of arguments have come up a few times so far, and I am not sure how useful they are before other groundwork has been laid. Let’s grant the assumption the country “soared” when Reformed Protestant theology predominated. What does that prove? The discernment of the divine will through the interpretation of history is a very difficult and dangerous move without an explicit authoritative interpretation, such as that provided by Scripture. Take the Babylonian exile - the people of Judah might have logically assumed that their deity was weaker than those of the Babylonians, and that’s why they were defeated. It took special revelation (both in the form of Deuteronomy and the prophets) to demonstrate that the Israelites were suffering specifically because of their disobedience. Where is the special revelation? WIthout that, any arguments based on history are largely conjectural. One could just as easily argue that Satan was behind the rise of the US, and that he used Protestantism as one of many tools to bring power to the United States so that it could become a new Rome and a different kind of oppressor on the world stage.
I don’t believe that, of course. I am simply pointing out that the interpretation of historical events is a dangerous game without specific, special revelation to guide you.
I agree with KingKai. Pretty much down the line here. My point in reporting the predominance of reformed theology in the colonies will become more apparent. For now the point is that it’s being labeled as fringe, dangerous and extreme is pure ignorance. It was boringly common when this once great nation was set in motion. We did very well then.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You mean the implication of Sloth telling the truth? Yeah, he doesn’t have to confess another sin when he goes to confession.[/quote]Sloth is an honest and decent man. That’s why he put me on ignore. Ironically enough. That was easier than the conversation that was coming if he didn’t. You won’t do that to me though Chris. That would not be the Christopher I’ve come to know and love. That is a straight faced serious statement in case you may be wondering btw.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:<<< Let them know we found it![/quote]Let them know YOU found it if this is your answer. Leave me outta this one.
[/quote]
So when you repented did that include having your sense of humor removed?[/quote]I should have put the little =] at the end. That WAS meant to be lighthearted. Sorry.
[/quote]
That often times is pretty much the religion of psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths
I get that lanche was joking - but on this I don’t think I could even force a fake smile - and fake smiles are something that usually comes very easy to me and all my slipperiness[/quote]What’s incredible is that Benny Hinn actually rebuked Joel Osteen on legitimate biblical grounds about his pathetic performance on Larry King’s show. It’s real bad when Benny Hinn is straightening you out. Benny Hinn to Joel Osteen: You’re a Demon-Possessed Coward | Joe Carter | First Things
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Thank you for your response Trib, I now understand the Christian mind a little bit better. You are right, I am not going to fall to my knees and proclaim my faith in God, that is not why I asked. I have made my views on religion well known, and it will take a lot to change that. I was just looking for a little insight into what Christianity is all about.[/quote]
That’s not the Christian mind, that’s tirib. He doesn’t represent me, or BC, or anybody else.
When you say Christian mind, you are lumping 2.1 billion people in to the mind of tirib. Keep in mind that one guy does not represent us all. He is representing a Calvinist micro-sect of Christianity that most of the Christian world denounces as heretical and patently false.
Don’t worry, according him, I am not only going to hell too, but I’ll be holing the door open for you.
[/quote]
I shall see you there. And, yes I do realize that his views are not necessarily those of most Christians. In fact, I have been reading that link he posted and if what that link says is correct, I do not really see how anybody, not a single person, could ever be considered worthy of entering heaven, if such a thing exists.
[/quote]
He’s on the lunatic fringe, not representative of basal Christianity. Like in any group of people, you have the core and then you have the others. The others are the ones who scream the loudest, but aren’t the majority.
Allow me to break it down. So you have 2.1 billion Christians in the world, but as you can see we can all be very different. But I will give you a hierarchy that should be relatively easy to understand.
By far the largest division is Catholicism. And at this level, I don’t mean specifically Roman Catholicism, but all the apostolic sects. Then there is Protestantism which more or less covers the rest.
You have about 1.6 to 1.8 billion in the apostolic sects, and then about 500,000,000 protestants.
With in Protestantism, you to major schools of thought, Arminianism is by far the larger school and then there are the Calvinists.
The major branch under Calvinism are the Presbyterians. And tirib belongs to a much smaller sect who are basically looking to revive the early American Puritanism.
My purpose for pointing all this out, wasn’t to bash the man, I have done plenty of that already and I simply do not interact with him anymore on any level. It is based on your statement saying that you now understand the “Christian mind” better. I have to speak up, because in my dealings with him I can only imagine you were exposed to some bat-shit crazy stuff that I regard as wholly unchristian, if anything.
All I want to say about this and I wish to say nothing more about it, is that his view, even around here is regarded as bordering on nuts and [u][i]NOT[/u][/i] representative of “Christianity” or us Christians as a whole.
I encourage independent research. I am happy to discuss with you, but you may detect bias in me. I do have it, but depending on my audience, I try to adjust.
That’s right, vacuums are space… with nothing occupying it… proving that space is not defined by the objects that occupy it. You can have space without matter and there are, most definitely, universes without any matter in them whatsoever.
[/quote]
Well it depends on what you are defining as matter. Are you defining matter as atomic particles, or subatomic. Even in Null Theory there is no scenario where space is actually empty. About 300 years ago Gottfried Libniz posited a theory called “Monadology” where he put forth the theory that there is no such thing as empty space, but that all space is occupied by basal particles he called “Monads”. Whether you call them Mondads or subatomic particles, it seems that he was right. No matter how much matter you attempt to suck out of an area, there is always something there.
“Most definitely” there are universes without matter? You may wanna slow down a hair there, champ. There is NO evidence, not a single solitary shred of evidence that any other universes exist, much less it be definite that empty ones exist. Yes, there are theories, but no evidence only possibilities, that quite frankly, aren’t that high.
What ever you want to call it, doesn’t matter to me. First of all you are arguing that there are an infinite amount of universes as if it were fact. It’s not. The only evidence for any universe existing is the one we interact with and believe is a reality. There are also, pretty damn well reasoned theories, that this universe does not even exist. So before you pass on ‘inifinite universes’ as a fact, you must know that such a notion is anything but and any scientist worth his salt would only posit such a thing as a ‘possibility’ and not a fact, because infinities are horrendously difficult things for science to manage because of the lack of constraint.
Second of all, I am trying to tell you somehow, in a way you may understand, that it doesn’t matter. If something exists that is not the uncontingent being, must be something that is contingent and it doesn’t matter much if it is infinite or not.
First M-Theory doesn’t equal sting theory? Well no, not directly, but all M-Theory is is a modified, hybrid of String Theory. Sting theory is the base of M-Theory and many other hybrids. And according to Dr. Matt, the multi dimensional portion of M-Theory is what is in jeopardy according to recent experiments at the CERN.
The next generations comming down the pipe are String theory based, not M-Theory.
By what are you developing this hierarchy?
I would develop hierarchy by that which something is subject to. So in this respect, physical existence is slave to metaphysics, so yes, metaphysics is then a ‘higher’ dimension, but this is hardly new ground. It’s been around since Socrates/ Plato.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I agree with KingKai. Pretty much down the line here. My point in reporting the predominance of reformed theology in the colonies will become more apparent. For now the point is that it’s being labeled as fringe, dangerous and extreme is pure ignorance. It was boringly common when this once great nation was set in motion. We did very well then.[/quote]
Ok, I see what you are saying, and I agree wholeheartedly. The whole “Calvinism-as-fringe-sect” indictment certainly succumbs to my previous critique. The legitimacy of a particular position simply cannot be determined by its perceptible level of influence in a given period.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I agree with KingKai. Pretty much down the line here. My point in reporting the predominance of reformed theology in the colonies will become more apparent. For now the point is that it’s being labeled as fringe, dangerous and extreme is pure ignorance. It was boringly common when this once great nation was set in motion. We did very well then.[/quote]
Adultery was boringly common during the economic boon of the late 20th century. Still dangerous. I couldn’t care if it was fringe or extreme (except that in the sense it isn’t the middle way).
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I agree with KingKai. Pretty much down the line here. My point in reporting the predominance of reformed theology in the colonies will become more apparent. For now the point is that it’s being labeled as fringe, dangerous and extreme is pure ignorance. It was boringly common when this once great nation was set in motion. We did very well then.[/quote]
Ok, I see what you are saying, and I agree wholeheartedly. The whole “Calvinism-as-fringe-sect” indictment certainly succumbs to my previous critique. The legitimacy of a particular position simply cannot be determined by its perceptible level of influence in a given period. [/quote]
It’s not Calvinism as a fringe sect. Most certainly the Presbyterians are large enough to not be considered a fringe sect. I am speaking more specifically, about the new, reformed, ultra-literal Calvinism… That has given to rise more recently.
Everything I believe. EVERYTHING, was absolutely standard at the founding of this nation. Vanilla Westminster Calvinism. Nothing extreme about it. Totally mainstream American here.
NOTE TO PAT, read the comment below this first. It’s basically a more condensed version of what I’m saying here, but I’m leaving my arguments here so you know I’m not just trying to dodge any of your points.
[quote]pat wrote:
Well it depends on what you are defining as matter. Are you defining matter as atomic particles, or subatomic. Even in Null Theory there is no scenario where space is actually empty. About 300 years ago Gottfried Libniz posited a theory called “Monadology” where he put forth the theory that there is no such thing as empty space, but that all space is occupied by basal particles he called “Monads”. Whether you call them Mondads or subatomic particles, it seems that he was right. No matter how much matter you attempt to suck out of an area, there is always something there.
“Most definitely” there are universes without matter? You may wanna slow down a hair there, champ. There is NO evidence, not a single solitary shred of evidence that any other universes exist, much less it be definite that empty ones exist. Yes, there are theories, but no evidence only possibilities, that quite frankly, aren’t that high.
[/quote]
Atomic. I understand that, even in a perfect vacuum void of photons and gravitons, that dark matter is still present. But, all this does is take space and define it as a form of matter. It’s a tautological argument and doesn’t defeat my point, which I will demonstrate after this;
M-theory is on the rocks, but while that’s big news, it isn’t taking down the entirety of string theory with it. Now, maybe you deny string theory, but if you don’t, then you prescribe to the idea of additional spatial dimensions. One dimension up from three will result in an infinite amount of 3d branes because that’s what a 4d brane is, an infinite amount of 3d branes. Just like how a 3d brane is made of an infinite amount of 2d branes. This is where my argument comes back in; if there are an infinite amount of 3d branes in whatever 4d brane we happen to be in, then there MUST be an infinite amount of universes with literally nothing more than the fabric of space itself in them.
Unless you deny string theory, then for all intents and purposes as far as this conversation is concerned, it is a fact that there are other universes. However, there is evidence of other universes. String theory is highly theoretical, but there’s a reason why it stands as more than just science fiction. Multiverse - Wikipedia
Also, infinity isn’t all that big of a deal when you’re dealing with multiple dimensions because as soon as you go one dimension up, that infinite amount of branes becomes one brane of a higher order.
Second of all, I am trying to tell you somehow, in a way you may understand, that it doesn’t matter. If there is something above the constraints of time, regardless of what it is, the need for ‘first cause’ vanishes. It’s no longer a matter of ‘reality, logically speaking, requires an “uncontingent being” less there be nothingness’ because reality is so much “bigger” than just the ‘spacetime’ of our particular universe. You have an infinite amount of time-lines, each created within a spacial dimension that is also one of an infinite amount of like branes. Eventually, you get to a point above time, a point where energy has always existed and to even say it has always existed is inappropriate as it implies that this dimension is relate able in any way to the lower dimensions in terms of the affects of time.
Once again, this is a logically inescapable conclusion as even God needs to exist in a dimension above the constraints of time to be timeless (even if he literally is that spatial dimension). My argument is that this necessity for a dimension above time is not an adequate argument for God as an infinite amount of energy spanning an infinite amount of time is already enough to guarantee literally everything. You keep dodging my argument by arguing against points that even your position is dependant on. Even if you deny all of string theory, you must still content that there is some “space/being” above the constraints of time in order for anything to be timeless.
Even in this case, the mere admission of this “greater than time space” is enough for my argument. I don’t need M-theory or string theory at all, it’s just icing on the cake because, unless you are open to the idea of an infinite regression of first causes, we find ourselves at the end of a logical experiment.
You want to add on to this end by saying God is necessary. Well, go ahead, but you can’t use “first cause” as an argument as our universes need for a “first cause” is satisfied simply by the existence of both an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of energy.
Do you not realize that string-theory also requires additional dimensions? There’s a difference between concluding there are great limitations to the scope of these dimensions and the utter eradication of multiple dimensions as a plausible theory.
And once again, I don’t actually need either theory. You’re obfuscating the issue. There are two options; either there is something, that is something (even if that thing isn’t “physical” in the same way normal things are) which is above the constraints of time that has always existed and will always exist, OR reality is an infinite regression of “fist causes” somehow (which, I would say, makes reality above the constraints of time anyway). It’s cool that there is all this science narrowing down the options, but I don’t need it. Even if the entirety of theoretical physics was proven wrong tomorrow, these will still be our two options and none of them require a God.
YOU have to argue that an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of energy is not enough to guarantee our universe, that it required concious creation. All these specifics about M-theory/string theory are just talking points that you are using to obfuscate the issue.
For the sake of convenience, I’m going to coin a term for my perspective here. I don’t know if this theory already has a name, but if not then from now on I’m calling this the “Dead God Theory”.
The specifics of this theory are as follows;
Reality is not an infinite regression of first causes (although it may very well be, this theory is dependant on that not being the case and I contend that an infinite regression is less likely for reasons that I don’t need to get into here.)
Reality must, therefore, have some aspect to it that is above the constraints of time at least to the extent that it does not require a beginning in order for our universe to have an uncaused cause.
This place of infinite time must also contain an infinite amount of energy. (This is tautologically the case.)
This place of infinite energy and time can be called ‘God’, but unlike the common use of the word ‘God’, this ‘God’ has no conciousness (at least not like human mind is concious, hence, dead) and is merely comprised of infinite time and energy as this combination is enough to guarantee the existence of our universe.
This theory stands opposed to your world-view which I would call “Live God Theory”, which is basically the same thing except your point of infinite time and energy is Yahweh. The problem is that your theory requires a few additional steps in order to make a “live” God necessary since our universe’s need for an uncaused cause is not enough as laid out in DGT.
I want to make it clear that DGT does not logically disprove the existence of God, but rather debunks the argument that the need for an uncaused cause is an argument for God.
So, Pat, you can either go about this by filling in the gaps in Live God Theory, or you can try to poke holes in Dead God Theory. I’ve taken theoretical physics off the table completely here to avoid unnecessary distractions.
Edit: I should make it clear that I’m only using the word ‘God’ here because it’s semantically convenient. I’m not trying to put forth pantheism.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
For the sake of convenience, I’m going to coin a term for my perspective here. I don’t know if this theory already has a name, but if not then from now on I’m calling this the “Dead God Theory”.
The specifics of this theory are as follows;
Reality is not an infinite regression of first causes (although it may very well be, this theory is dependant on that not being the case and I contend that an infinite regression is less likely for reasons that I don’t need to get into here.)
Reality must, therefore, have some aspect to it that is above the constraints of time at least to the extent that it does not require a beginning in order for our universe to have an uncaused cause.
This place of infinite time must also contain an infinite amount of energy. (This is tautologically the case.)
This place of infinite energy and time can be called ‘God’, but unlike the common use of the word ‘God’, this ‘God’ has no conciousness (at least not like human mind is concious, hence, dead) and is merely comprised of infinite time and energy as this combination is enough to guarantee the existence of our universe.
This theory stands opposed to your world-view which I would call “Live God Theory”, which is basically the same thing except your point of infinite time and energy is Yahweh. The problem is that your theory requires a few additional steps in order to make a “live” God necessary since our universe’s need for an uncaused cause is not enough as laid out in DGT.
I want to make it clear that DGT does not logically disprove the existence of God, but rather debunks the argument that the need for an uncaused cause is an argument for God.
So, Pat, you can either go about this by filling in the gaps in Live God Theory, or you can try to poke holes in Dead God Theory. I’ve taken theoretical physics off the table completely here to avoid unnecessary distractions.
Edit: I should make it clear that I’m only using the word ‘God’ here because it’s semantically convenient. I’m not trying to put forth pantheism.[/quote]
Your theory fails on the first premise. Reality is not really relevant in that there is no way we can confirm reality. Second, if you mean existence, no one is or ever has argued such a thing as an infinite regression of first causes. That doesn’t make sense on any level.
Your second premise also fails, time is not required. So it’s plainly not true. You have to try and prove atemporal causation does not exist. Time was eliminated as a confounding variable 1600 years ago.
If the first and second premise fail the whole argument fails. I commend the effort, but you really need to look at everything.
You haven’t debunked a thing, you’ve merely retreaded old, failed counter claims.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
NOTE TO PAT, read the comment below this first. It’s basically a more condensed version of what I’m saying here, but I’m leaving my arguments here so you know I’m not just trying to dodge any of your points.
[quote]pat wrote:
Well it depends on what you are defining as matter. Are you defining matter as atomic particles, or subatomic. Even in Null Theory there is no scenario where space is actually empty. About 300 years ago Gottfried Libniz posited a theory called “Monadology” where he put forth the theory that there is no such thing as empty space, but that all space is occupied by basal particles he called “Monads”. Whether you call them Mondads or subatomic particles, it seems that he was right. No matter how much matter you attempt to suck out of an area, there is always something there.
“Most definitely” there are universes without matter? You may wanna slow down a hair there, champ. There is NO evidence, not a single solitary shred of evidence that any other universes exist, much less it be definite that empty ones exist. Yes, there are theories, but no evidence only possibilities, that quite frankly, aren’t that high.
[/quote]
Atomic. I understand that, even in a perfect vacuum void of photons and gravitons, that dark matter is still present. But, all this does is take space and define it as a form of matter. It’s a tautological argument and doesn’t defeat my point, which I will demonstrate after this;
M-theory is on the rocks, but while that’s big news, it isn’t taking down the entirety of string theory with it. Now, maybe you deny string theory, but if you don’t, then you prescribe to the idea of additional spatial dimensions. One dimension up from three will result in an infinite amount of 3d branes because that’s what a 4d brane is, an infinite amount of 3d branes. Just like how a 3d brane is made of an infinite amount of 2d branes. This is where my argument comes back in; if there are an infinite amount of 3d branes in whatever 4d brane we happen to be in, then there MUST be an infinite amount of universes with literally nothing more than the fabric of space itself in them.
[/quote]
I have no issue with string theory and never have. Now while it does posit an infinite amount of parallel universes are possible, in no way, shape or form does it suggest it must be the case. It’s possible, but it’s far, far, far from being a fact.
Second, even if there were, it does absolutely nothing to the cosmological argument.
And for the record, I have told you many times already, I don’t have an issue with string theory or any of it’s variants. I never have had an issue with it. I think it’s quite interesting actually and I like it very much.
No it doesn’t. Other than doing a song and dance number on Broadway I really don’t know how to get through to you, that time is not relevant to the discussion. When you are dealing with contingencies and dependencies, time is not a factor, at all. To say “An atom requires the presence of at least one electron.” Is not a temporal statement. There is no time to deal with ,so temporal order flies out the window as a necessity here. If I say, “I added an electron to a proton and nutron and the object became an atom.” Then I am making temporal statement.
So even if the universe some how has always existed, even if there are an infinite amount of universes, it still doesn’t affect the Cosmological argument.
Hell, I don’t even have to ask about the universes themselves. All I have to ask is, what caused the laws by which the strings behave. What caused the strings? ← How many there are, 0 to infinity doesn’t matter.
Who said anything about God existing in a dimension? Lots of things exist outside of space /time. It’s called metaphysics. It’s a whole veritable ocean of things, objects, stuff, that exists outside the constraints of the space-time continuum. It’s not just God that exists here, there everything that controls the physical world exists here as well. Even if you destroyed all physical existence with one giant bomb, this would still exist.
And even the metaphysical is contingent.
The only thing that escapes logic is that paragraph.
I am kind of lost as to what argument your are making. Making the universe infinite, infinite universes, or infinite anything doesn’t even remotely refute the argument.
I could go ahead and point out that this universe we are aware of, is not infinite, at all. It’s quite finite. And the infinite universe thing exists as a theoretical possibility, it’s not even necessarily probable. In the end none of it matters. It can be infinite all day long. The cosmological argument is not effected by that.
Considering the entropy in the universe is increasing, by that very fact alone, we know that the energy in the universe is finite. If it were infinite, you could not measure it’s entropy.
Time is a measurement really, all it does is measure the change or movement of one object as relative to another. If everything was moving the same, together with no relative difference, you could not measure time. If everything stopped moving all together, there would be no time.
Thirdly, all these hypothetical infinities is an absolute nightmare scenario for scientist, you know that right. If all these hypothetical infinities were found to exist, it’s going to make it also, infinitely harder to measure or learn anything about the universe.
Fourthly, like a broken record, infinite existence, at any level, is not an issue for cosmology. There is one thing that is not infinite and cannot be infinite, is causal regression. Infinite regresses beg the question, they are circular so they cannot exist for that reason. So make your universe as infinite as you want it to be. Not only will you be likely, wrong about the universe, but your still won’t do jack shit to the cosmological argument.
Yes. Why does this matter to you so much?
I don’t have to argue anything of the sort. All I need, is for it to be contingent. Science, as wonderful and cool as it is, will never be able to debunk the cosmological argument. I just sense you don’t have a grasp on what it is. If you did, you would realize your whole line of i reasoning is irrelevant.
I don’t know why your trying to reinvent the wheel here. These counter claim arguments you brought up, most of them where refuted some 1600 years ago with the contingency revisions. It did two major things, it took the issue of what exists out of the equation and it took time out of the equation. You saying I need time to make my argument work doesn’t mean I need time to make my argument work. It just means you don’t understand the argument fully. Or you really don’t understand causation very well.
Whatever the case, you have a very, very narrow limited view of what existence is, you’re stuck in the physical.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Everything I believe. EVERYTHING, was absolutely standard at the founding of this nation. Vanilla Westminster Calvinism. Nothing extreme about it. Totally mainstream American here. [/quote]
lots of bad ideas were absolutely standard at the founding of this nation. Not exactly an argument strengthener…just saying