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.
Not when the cause or even the why or what remains unknown. The problem is that reality DOES exist and we do NOT know Why or what it is but it is responsible for everything including us and the laws that govern our very existence. It is hard to imagine a more godly God than that relative to us puny creatures. So . . . in the face of our ignorance pretending there IS no why or what responsible is disingenuous. It is like mother-in-law-itis . . . talking about everything your mother-in-law does but never acknowledging her existence.
Yes. They are everything we have every discovered about our reality through science and observation.
I don't associate a word attributed to mythological deities, "god," with ultimate reality, and I highly doubt alphamale and others of his ilk share this conception. I avoid such term unless I am referring to mythological deity characters. If I discuss something otherwise pantheistic/deistic or panentheistic/deistic in nature, I use a much less religiously loaded term. Advaitists' conception of creation/existence is that Brahman is Ultimate Reality/Transcendence, which is a far more fascinating concept than a desert chieftain deity, El, separating the heavens and the earth -- did not create, as many have been led to believe based on improper exegesis. And this makes perfect sense due to the nature of Canaanite myths and folklore. Tribes borrowing themes and motifs already present in neighboring mythos.
The idea that El created anything, much less the universe, makes about as much sense as the Egyptian god Ra being the Awesomest, Fantabulous, Greatest, Magnificent Creator.
The onus is on the claimant. If you're certain there was a Cause then it is on you to put forth the evidence, and no, mythological text doesn't qualify.
What are the characteristics, attributes and traits of this "Cause"? What can be known about it. Again, without relying on ancient mythological writings. Because, we all know, there are a lot of those, and all with varying concepts of such a "Cause."
Are these characteristics and attributes observable and testable?
Reason is required on behalf of anything, its nature is reflective and the universe is a logical event. That a belief has confidence is only reflective reasoning.
Last edited by Sophronius; 07-01-2014 at 10:00 PM..
Reason: triming
07-01-2014, 09:52 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophronius
The problem is there is nothing to bring to the table to suggest there is not a cause.
That is not true:
1) There are models that are eternal where matter/energy have no cause.
2) There are models that suggest that the expansion of space-time had a cause. (Note the nature of the cause is not specified - it could well be matter/energy, etc. but nothing necessitates it to be metaphysical)
3) No model says that there was absolutely nothing and then something - not one.
As far as logic is concerned 1 and 2 are on equal footing.
Saying that matter/energy are eternal and have no cause is just as logical as saying that the cause of matter/energy is without cause. Somewhere there is going to be something that is without cause or you will have a regress problem.
1) There are models that are eternal where matter/energy have no cause.
2) There are models that suggest that the expansion of space-time had a cause. (Note the nature of the cause is not specified - it could well be matter/energy, etc. but nothing necessitates it to be metaphysical)
3) No model says that there was absolutely nothing and then something - not one.
As far as logic is concerned 1 and 2 are on equal footing.
Saying that matter/energy are eternal and have no cause is just as logical as saying that the cause of matter/energy is without cause. Somewhere there is going to be something that is without cause or you will have a regress problem.
adding relative to observation in time, plus no model would be able in 3) and agree with the final thinking, although matter energy could be an extension or reflection of an infinite origin.
Last edited by Sophronius; 07-01-2014 at 10:58 PM..
I think we do becuase I think, if we're trying to determine the origin of all that is, it doesn't matter whether a god exists or not...because saying "God created the universe" tells close to zero information about how the universe was created.
Assuming a god is beyod logic...what we're really saying by "a god created our universe" is either "how all that is came to be can never be known." or "how our universe came to be cannot be understood by the human mind."
I have a similar complaint about everything insta-poofing from nothing. What is nothing? That's not an explanation either.
So my objection to both the views that everything insta-poofed from nothing, and a god created it all is not so much that they're wrong. I don't think that is necessarily wrong. My objection is that neither statement answers the question.
An eternal existence of some kind (although I am under the impression time began with the big bang...but I'm not sure exactly what that means. presumably something had to instigate the big bang). Could very well be wrong, but I think it's at least an explanation.
We're getting into the heavy-thinking area I could very well be wrong though. It's been nice talking to you though.
(also...note that maybe the universe is eternal and there is a god. If a god is beyond time, maybe that god could have created all that is and made it eternal...made it have existed forever.)
While I do not believe in a god, I like to weasel out of saying there probably isn't one when talking about the origin of all that is. When none of the possibilities for the creation of the universe seem possible...we have to open our minds considerably wider than usual.
One big problem is the use of the word accident.
He is right in that there is not thing as a 'cosmic accident'.
The moose moving story is only an 'accident' in that it is a human word used to describe an incident that was not foreseen, basically in order to determine fault....of a human.
The outcome was dependent on purely physical series of events. An unknown number of things could have happened that would have caused a different result...you know, if the dog hadn't stopped to crap, he would have caught the rabbit.If, if , if....
It is the same with the Big Bang, if indeed there was such an occurrence, it only happened due to a series of natural occurrences (the moose moved) Since no human was involved and no blame needs to be assigned, the word accident is totally irrelevant.
1) There are models that are eternal where matter/energy have no cause.
2) There are models that suggest that the expansion of space-time had a cause. (Note the nature of the cause is not specified - it could well be matter/energy, etc. but nothing necessitates it to be metaphysical)
3) No model says that there was absolutely nothing and then something - not one.
As far as logic is concerned 1 and 2 are on equal footing.
Saying that matter/energy are eternal and have no cause is just as logical as saying that the cause of matter/energy is without cause. Somewhere there is going to be something that is without cause or you will have a regress problem.
I'm no scientist of any kind...nor someone who researches the sciences much. However, I see a greater problem with the idea of something having no cause than with something having infinite causes.
So far as I am aware, we have not found proof of things that exist without causes, so why would we assume there are things that exist without causes? Aside from our primitive human instincts that tell us I cannot move an infinite number of rocks because I only have a few decades of life, why would we assume an infinite number of reasons is problematic at all?
More importantly though...the only way to learn the greatest amount of truth is to keep finding causes until it proves impossible to go further, so we might as well assume there are an infinite number of causes until proven otherwise...if we are to make an assumption, not that we necessarily have to make an assumption....
A "cosmic accident" is illogical. ID is logical, based on what we see around us.
How often do you see creator gods magically poof universes into existence? That's certainly not something I "see around us", so I'm not sure how you can claim creationism is based on observation.
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.
