13 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think however that the key flaw in his reasoning and in any 'first cause' argument is the assumption that everything in the universe has an answer to 'why' and that the 'why' chain must be traced outside the universe before it stops or becomes 'incoherent'. WHITEY
Most of knightmeister's post seems to assume that the universe is known to be causal in nature. This is simply not true. At the quantum level, particle positions are essentially random. There may be a reason (cause) for their positions but it is not known whether there is and the actual result is indistinguishable from a situation where there is no known ...[text shortened]... necessarily means finite which is simply not true.
If something exists and we are unable to say why it exists then it is essentially unexplainable. Only caused phenomena can be explained because they require a why. But if we provide a why then we must also provide a why for the why and so on. The buck stops somewhere and wherever it stops becomes incoherent to us because we are trapped in causality and know of nothing else. We may put forward quantum physics as an example of randomness but randomness then becomes incoherent because we can't understand it.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think however knightmeisters problem is the assumption based on his world view that there must be an answer to 'why' though his suggestion that some things may be incoherent seems to be an admission or realization that there may not always be an answer to 'why'. WHITEY
Most of knightmeister's post seems to assume that the universe is known to be causal in nature. This is simply not true. At the quantum level, particle positions are essentially random. There may be a reason (cause) for their positions but it is not known whether there is and the actual result is indistinguishable from a situation where there is no known ...[text shortened]... necessarily means finite which is simply not true.
This could not be my world view since you know I am a theist who believes in a God for whom the question why does he exist has no meaning (nor needs to) . You are the one who keeps using incoherency as a by-word for "wrong" in arguments.
16 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut you have not shown that it is incoherent, you have just stated it.
........4. There is no cause for some things and that is essentially mysterious and incoherent ...
..so therefore if incoherence is essentially an unavoidable part of existence why does something being incoherent (mystetrious) automatically mean that it is false.
It doesn't but it does mean that you can never coherently prove it.
The premise 'all things that are true must be coherent' is not proven.
I don't think it is claimed either. But if you just presume "everything is incoherent" then you might as well be mad and believe in invisible pink unicorns. If there is a coherent explanation and an incoherent one the sane person will accept the coherent one or at the very least look for other coherent alternatives.
16 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut you only believe in God because you desire an answer to a 'why'. Once you accept that not all things have an answer you must then decide how to categorize which things do or don't have an answer. You think that the universe needs an answer but you hypothetical God doesn't. But you cannot explain 'why'.
This could not be my world view since you know I am a theist who believes in a God for whom the question why does he exist has no meaning (nor needs to) . You are the one who keeps using incoherency as a by-word for "wrong" in arguments.
17 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is not my primary reason for believing in God. my primary reason for believing in God is my experience of the Holy Spirit as being a real and living presence in my life. God to me is not an intellectual game , he's a living presence (when I give him time) . I am primarily an experiential thinker. Experience is paramount , constrained by reason and ratioanlity.
But you only believe in God because you desire an answer to a 'why'. Once you accept that not all things have an answer you must then decide how to categorize which things do or don't have an answer. You think that the universe needs an answer but you hypothetical God doesn't. But you cannot explain 'why'.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterGod is your explanation for your experiences, an answer to your question of 'why do I experience this?'. Yet most of what you believe about God can not be experienced.
This is not my primary reason for believing in God. my primary reason for believing in God is my experience of the Holy Spirit as being a real and living presence in my life. God to me is not an intellectual game , he's a living presence (when I give him time) . I am primarily an experiential thinker. Experience is paramount , constrained by reason and ratioanlity.
Your beliefs are clearly not constrained by reason and rationality. You readily admit that some of your beliefs are irrational.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour entire "universe" argument falls apart when properly scrutinised though. Your argument assumes that time is a subset of itself. Circular reasoning. I've shown you this often enough, but you refuse to acknowledge it for some reason.
If I can explain how the universe got here then it would be self defeating wouldn't it because someone could always ask " how did the cause of the universe getting here get here?" . If I said the universe came from nothing then there is no way I can explain it coherently because to explain it would be to invoke a cause or mechanism of which there can b ...[text shortened]... fe and all things no matter what are explainable in coherent ways. But what if they are not?
Likewise, I've tried to explain to you that "free will" is an illusion caused by the inability to predict all future events in a stochastic universe.
21 Jul 07
One view is that the truth of the origin of the universe can only be known by a tiny elite group of super intelligent people. These can navigate their way through the intricate theories of quantum mechanics and laws of gravity. Perhaps a happy handful of a dozen minds in the world are smart enough to fathom the science behind the universe coming into existence. This group is very small and restricted and could learn such things for only after a lifetime of education.
Then there is the thought that the Creator wants as many people as possible to understand the basics. God in His love would not have us groping in the dark. God revealed truth to mankind in the Bible. He has communicated to man in words which the most number of people can grasp:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1)
Probably a first grader can grasp this as well as the post graduate Phd.
We are all leveled. Even we are all humbled. The words are simple and matter of fact. There is even no begging the hearer to believe. You get it or you don't get it. You receive it or you reject it:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The Creator is telling us what we need to know. The source of the universe is God. As much as it is possible for our finite minds to understand, God "in the beginning" is responsible for the existence of everything.
Revelation from God precludes that God intends the most number of people to easily understand the truth, if they are will to believe.
Man's way is prideful restriction of this knowledge to an ever more narrow elite of brilliant thinkers. They alone can figure it all out. Or so they tell us.
God's way to revealing the truth is broad and opened and designed to communicate to the largest number of human beings of all kinds. Man's way is restricted, elite, prideful and opened only to the smartest scholars of science and philosophy. Only that elite few can hope to figure out the origin of the world.
Science is great and I'm as interested in it as anyone else. But as far as the basic vital truth is concerned I take my stand with faith in the word of God:
"By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear." (Hebrews 11:3)
"He spoke and it was. He commanded and it stood" (Psalm 33:9)
[b]"
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzYour entire "universe" argument falls apart when properly scrutinised though. Your argument assumes that time is a subset of itself. Circular reasoning.SCOTTY
Your entire "universe" argument falls apart when properly scrutinised though. Your argument assumes that time is a subset of itself. Circular reasoning. I've shown you this often enough, but you refuse to acknowledge it for some reason.
Likewise, I've tried to explain to you that "free will" is an illusion caused by the inability to predict all future events in a stochastic universe.
You think you can sidestep the essential paradox around the origins of life itself by mere word play? The universe is either explainable or it isn't . If it isn't then one must admit that there is an essentially inpenetrable mystery to the universe (thus an argument for a mystical view of life) , if it is explainable then one must say what it is that explains it . However , if you explain the existence of the universe you then are left with the problem of explaining the explanation, and then explaining the explanation of the explanation.
So you end up with either a never ending problem or a paradoxical uncaused mystery. Come up with a reasoned expalnation ofr the origins of the universe and I will ask you once again to explain that further. You cannot do it , the buck either stops with mystery or "that's just the way it is" or some other paradox like the universe created itself. Either way rigid rationality breaks down. Haven't you realised this yet?
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo I won't/ No reason is required, because no (logical) question exists. Now bugger off.
Your entire "universe" argument falls apart when properly scrutinised though. Your argument assumes that time is a subset of itself. Circular reasoning.SCOTTY
You think you can sidestep the essential paradox around the origins of life itself by mere word play? The universe is either explainable or it isn't . If it isn't then one must admit that ther ...[text shortened]... created itself. Either way rigid rationality breaks down. Haven't you realised this yet?
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm afraid I won't just go away when things get really interesting.
No I won't/ No reason is required, because no (logical) question exists. Now bugger off.
If there was a plausible and possible logical answer then surely a logical question would be possible......you say "no logical question exists" without considering why. How do you explain the fact that there is no logical question?
You can say "no reason is required" but there is always a requirement for a reason or explanation if one is committed to a purely exclusive rational approach to a problem.
All this does is deepen the mystery. It's nothing to be afraid of. On which tablet of stone is it written that the universe cannot be an inpenetrable mystery? It's only a problem if one has invested heavily in the concept that everything has a rational explanation.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYet something is only a mystery if there is an unanswered question. The problem is that you are assuming that the question itself is correct which you have not been able to show. For example I may ask why did you put on a pink shirt today? Its a mystery. But if you didn't put on a pink shirt then the mystery is a bit silly isn't it?
All this does is deepen the mystery. It's nothing to be afraid of. On which tablet of stone is it written that the universe cannot be an inpenetrable mystery? It's only a problem if one has invested heavily in the concept that everything has a rational explanation.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut what if you are unable to ask me any questions at all because none of them make much sense. That would be a bit wierd wouldn't it?
Yet something is only a mystery if there is an unanswered question. The problem is that you are assuming that the question itself is correct which you have not been able to show. For example I may ask why did you put on a pink shirt today? Its a mystery. But if you didn't put on a pink shirt then the mystery is a bit silly isn't it?
24 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterQuestions assume causality, which assumes the pre-existence of time. Time cannot be a sub-set of itself, and it doesn't exist independently of space, or so says Mr Einstein.
I'm afraid I won't just go away when things get really interesting.
If there was a plausible and possible logical answer then surely a logical question would be possible......you say "no logical question exists" without considering why. How do you explain the fact that there is no logical question?
You can say "no reason is required" but t ...[text shortened]... m if one has invested heavily in the concept that everything has a rational explanation.
10 Aug 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou are so obsessed with time that you fail to see the deeper philosophical question here. Why are we unable to ask any logical questions?
Questions assume causality, which assumes the pre-existence of time. Time cannot be a sub-set of itself, and it doesn't exist independently of space, or so says Mr Einstein.
I don't think it's anything to do with time myself but with the breakdown of logic . But because logic breaks down as we know it does that mean that we stop asking ?