Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I haven't caught the whole argument between you and him...but in my experience, it's usually the atheists running away like little boys because they can't explain away the cosmological argument.
But you and I know better, Because when we have debated it, you are the one who has always cut and run.
I stopped counting after six times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Simply put, we know the universe had a beginning...so what caused it? It couldn't have caused itself, since cause/effect dictates that whatever causes something cannot be part of that thing--it has to be outside of it.
Simply put, we do not know that the universe had a beginning. Further, if the laws of conservation and causality (which you yourself cite here) are true, then the universe cannot have had a beginning.
Obviously there are many points of view and people here are fully capable of arguing their points but, and these are honest questions, has science been furthered by this debate, if so how and, have any of the main posters to this thread added anything of significance to anything other than the ability to argue obviously debatable points?
I mean, how is anyone supposed to take any of this debate seriously when so many slurs are thrown around, especially liar.
The Cosmological Argument always begins with an acknowledgment of the laws of conservation and causality in one form or another; "ex nihilo, nihil fit" or "all effects must have a cause" or "something cannot come from nothing."
But each of these starting points can only lead to the conclusion of an eternal chain of causality, since any break of that causal chain requires the premise to have been wrong. And most versions of the Cosmological Argument usually admit explicitly that this leads inexorably only to an "infinite regress." If there actually was an "uncaused cause," or a "first mover" then the laws of conservation and causality are shown to be false.
This is explicitly the only logical conclusion from these premises. But it is also completely counter intuitive. So the Cosmological Argument chooses at this point to abandon logic and replace it with intuition.
Quote:
in·tu·i·tion (nt-shn, -ty-) n.
1. a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason. b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.
The Cosmological argument declares its own premise false and then arbitrarily asserts a break in the causal chain, usually then going on to label that break "God."
In this way it is internally contradictory and self refuting.
Obviously there are many points of view and people here are fully capable of arguing their points but, and these are honest questions, has science been furthered by this debate, if so how and, have any of the main posters to this thread added anything of significance to anything other than the ability to argue obviously debatable points?
No. This is not actually a scientific debate. It is a politico-religious debate.
Science does not depend on this debate to be "furthered." It is quite capable of furthering itself without our help.
The purpose of dealing with folks like GuyNTexas or Calvinist in threads like these are not to convince them, but to expose them. The people who benefit are the readers, not the debaters.
But you and I know better, Because when we have debated it, you are the one who has always cut and run.
I stopped counting after six times.
Simply put, we do not know that the universe had a beginning. Further, if the laws of conservation and causality (which you yourself cite here) are true, then the universe cannot have had a beginning.
It is eternal and uncreated.
I've never "run away" from you.
We know it is not eternal for reasons such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We also know that time cannot be infinite...how do you cross an infinite amount of time? At some point it had a beginning.
We know the universe is expanding. Trace it back far enough, you see it had a beginning. Most scientists call that the "Big Bang". You should try googling that sometime...it might keep you busy for awhile. Do some reading.
Your mindless rambling above about it contradicting itself is somewhat schizophrenic. Can you show me something that has happened w/out being caused?
No. This is not actually a scientific debate. It is a politico-religious debate.
Science does not depend on this debate to be "furthered." It is quite capable of furthering itself without our help.
The purpose of dealing with folks like GuyNTexas or Calvinist in threads like these are not to convince them, but to expose them. The people who benefit are the readers, not the debaters.
I would have to assume that the only readers who you think actually benefit are the ones who agree with you, is this not correct?
Oh, pulleeeeeze. I've lost count of the times you have run away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
We know it is not eternal for reasons such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We also know that time cannot be infinite...how do you cross an infinite amount of time? At some point it had a beginning.
1. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is reset every time the universe passes through a singularity like the Big Bang. Entropy is measured by the dimension of energy divided by a temperature. There are no temperatures within a singularity, so the energy that emerges on the other side is 100% available for doing work. Only then can entropy begin to accumulate.
2. There is no actual reason time cannot be infinite. You are again defaulting to intuition, not reason or logic. Furthermore, as a theist you have already conceded the possibility of eternal and uncreated entities... although your particular solution contradicts the laws of conservation and causality, while an eternal and uncreated universe does not.
3. You cross an infinite amount of time in an infinite amount of time, just as you cross a year of time in a year. Either way... you still end up at now.
I would have to assume that the only readers who you think actually benefit are the ones who agree with you, is this not correct?
No. That's not correct.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
n
t
-
n, -ty