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.
In the beginning! if the universe had a beginning then any and all things therein must have had a beginning.
Finite nature is known and observed in this universe and is defined as any life process or living substance which has a beginning and end. While our physical form is finite, the term mortal is used in reference to our life process.
Let's not fall into the fallacy of composition. Just because there is causation within the Universe does not mean that the Universe itself had a cause. I prefer the terms matter/energy rather than Universe though. Matter/energy are transformed and that is what we examine and study as causation - this can be cyclical and not linear. As such there is no need for a cause to matter/energy just its transformations that take place forever.
Simple logic tells us that there HAD to be a first cause that was not caused. Do you not realize that? Does that not make sense to you?
But it's not. We know it had a beginning.
Actually..yes---as I said...we know the universe began at some point. Whether you believe it was 6000 years ago or 14.2 billion....it had a beginning.
If universes come in and out of existence then there is nothing special about ours having a beginning and it certainly would not need a creator under this scenario. We do not know our universe is the only one that has or ever will exist.
We know from quantum mechanics that something comes from nothing all the time. Empty space seems to be the best definition of nothing, and physics tell us particles can appear and disappear within that empty space without violating any natural laws. These particles do not need a creator to appear where none were before.
People have tried to "prove" God's existence for thousands of years without success. Do you seriously think you are somehow different?
If universes come in and out of existence then there is nothing special about ours having a beginning and it certainly would not need a creator under this scenario. We do not know our universe is the only one that has or ever will exist.
We know from quantum mechanics that something comes from nothing all the time.
At least as far as we can tell, right?
Quote:
Empty space seems to be the best definition of nothing, and physics tell us particles can appear and disappear within that empty space without violating any natural laws. These particles do not need a creator to appear where none were before.
People have tried to "prove" God's existence for thousands of years without success. Do you seriously think you are somehow different?
I am going with the argument that was formulated a long time ago. I've never seen a decent rebuttal to Kalaam's Cosmological argument. Knock yourself out if you want to give it a try.
Here's what I reason: in 5 billion years the sun will burn out and with it all life on earth. We are doomed as a world anyway. That's no reason to give up in the present, I agree, but can people understand that our solar system has an expiration date. Christians believe Jesus will return long before then but what if he doesn't?
I am going with the argument that was formulated a long time ago. I've never seen a decent rebuttal to Kalaam's Cosmological argument. Knock yourself out if you want to give it a try.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
C) Therefore the Universe has a cause.
Here: And this ASSUMES the Validity of the syllogism. Something I think, given your pattern in other threads, you will not justify.
1) Every Valid Deductive Syllogism does not necessitate reality.
2) The KCA is a valid deductive syllogism.
C) Therefore, the KCA does not necessitate reality.
There is a little lesson for you in logic Vizio.
I would actually love to go over this with you Vizio. Start a thread on it and defend the premises and I will be glad to argue against not only its validity but its soundness. You want to do that?
In fact I will give you a little taste of the fallacies it engages in - one I already pointed out - the fallacy of composition and the other is the fallacy of equivocation. If you follow William Lane Craig you can see the jukin and jiving he does with these accusations.
Agreed. But we do know that the universe had a beginning.
Actually, it comes down to simple logic. If you're willing to consider the implications. We can deduce that there was a creator. Now....WHO that creator is, we can't know from logic.
Its not illogical to consider that "cause and effect", a phenomenon of existence, may have nothing to do with the presence of existence in the first place. If cause and effect is tied to the presence of existence, then there's nothing necessarily requiring it in the absence of existence.
In addition, all cause and effect is time based, the cause before the effect. If there was no time in existence, then there was no "before". "Before" is a time concept - it is chained to time. You have to consider the absence of time, period.
Your hand waving that it comes down to "simple logic" is gibberish. Your compulsion to require a creator is clearly tied to your everyday experience of cause and effect - but you feel qualified to overlay that onto the very nature of existence itself. That's just guessing.
The Encyclopedia of Gods: Over 2,500 Deities of the World shows us how man's mind has been pre-occupied with the idea of gods now for over 60,000 years. If this book lists these gods in some kind of timeline, you can then go back to God 1, God 2, God 3............etc. And you can determine which number/version your favorite god is...... just like a Microsoft software release.
Nature as God certainly resonates within me as truth more than any religious deity I've ever heard or read about - especially the Abrahamic version.
Agreed. I just don't like the idea of God as being some punishing male deity who approves/disapproves of everything I do or say, and my life is supposed to revolve around what this thing/being wants or thinks of me. I especially don't like this idea since I have always had an on again/off again, mostly absent father, so the idea of living for the approval of a theoretical male role model is rather repugnant to me. I've been playing with the idea of paganism lately, because I do miss spirituality in my life, but I'm not sure which direction I should go with it or how to even find out about it.
Agreed. I just don't like the idea of God as being some punishing male deity who approves/disapproves of everything I do or say, and my life is supposed to revolve around what this thing/being wants or thinks of me. I especially don't like this idea since I have always had an on again/off again, mostly absent father, so the idea of living for the approval of a theoretical male role model is rather repugnant to me. I've been playing with the idea of paganism lately, because I do miss spirituality in my life, but I'm not sure which direction I should go with it or how to even find out about it.
Lots of good pagan deities/demigods to choose from in my thread "Is Jesus Derived From Pagan Jewish---" something or other; I forget the title.
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.
