Spirituality
02 Oct 05
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by telerionI don't deserve all the credit. I stood on the shoulders of giants. It was bbarr's spark of genius in postulating a more powerful God that created God that enabled my work.
Perhaps you should pay closer attention to the Doctor's fine work in this thread. He has opened new frontiers in the cosmological argument.
The profundity of the Doctor's revelations can be very hard to grasp, so let me help you along a bit by offering just one of many possible alternative solutions.
"A greater God created your god and this gre ...[text shortened]... ind a cause for this cause. And then another for this new cause. Continue ad infinitum.
04 Oct 05
Which ever way you look at it you require an element of faith.
As far as where you stop the God-chain, yes, you are right.
Faith in my God is supported by divine revelation in the Bible.
This is all well and good except that by declaring the Bible to be "divine revelation" you have eviscerated the worth of your argument.
This is basically what you have.
Claim: Faith in God is justified because the Bible reveals God.
Support: The Bible is sufficient evidence for faith in God because it is the "divine revelation" of God.
See the problem?
04 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerExcept that such a supposition immediately destroys the first statement of that cosmological argument which is that everything that exists has a cause. Unless you want to claim that God does not exist.
Except that, in the usual form of the Cosmological (?) argument, God is the First Cause - that Cause which is, itself, uncaused.
Since, by definition, the first Cause is uncaused, it makes no sense to ask, "Who caused the First Cause?" That's really the same as asking "Which natural number is smaller than 1?" or "How many sides does a circle have?"
I know that there are better formulations of the argument (e.g. Kalaam's or Contingency). Try not to exert to much energy analyzing that post. The jocular component is intended to dominate the philosophical.
Actually the Cosmological Argument is pretty silly.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionYou have it all wrong. Not everything that exists is eternal. Some things are 'eternal' and thus by definition do not require a cause, because they have no beginning and no end. i.e. God. However the things that are not eternal and exist, e.g. plants and animals, the universe, etc. do have a beginning and thus require a cause.
Except that such a supposition immediately destroys the first statement of that cosmological argument which is that everything that exists has a cause. Unless you want to claim that God does not exist.
I know that there are better formulations of the argument (e.g. Kalaam's or Contingency). Try not to exert to much energy analyzing that post. The joc ...[text shortened]... s intended to dominate the philosophical.
Actually the Cosmological Argument is pretty silly.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by murrowI believe that God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth and there will be no more sorrow, pain or grief. I thus don't think that you will run into the same dog because that would invoke some grief in you.
just hypothetically. say i ran into the same dog and recognised it.
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnd, once again, the atheist can claim that the universe is eternal. If the theist wants to reject the principle of sufficient reason, fine. The atheist can do that as well. The point, obviously, is that the positing of an eternal X doesn't bear any justificatory relation to the claim that God exists.
You have it all wrong. Not everything that exists is eternal. Some things are 'eternal' and thus by definition do not require a cause, because they have no beginning and no end. i.e. God. However the things that are not eternal and exist, e.g. plants and animals, the universe, etc. do have a beginning and thus require a cause.
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by telerionActually the Cosmological Argument is pretty silly.
Except that such a supposition immediately destroys the first statement of that cosmological argument which is that everything that exists has a cause. Unless you want to claim that God does not exist.
I know that there are better formulations of the argument (e.g. Kalaam's or Contingency). Try not to exert to much energy analyzing that post. The joc ...[text shortened]... s intended to dominate the philosophical.
Actually the Cosmological Argument is pretty silly.
Could you elaborate?
04 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrAnd, once again, the atheist can claim that the universe is eternal.
And, once again, the atheist can claim that the universe is eternal. If the theist wants to reject the principle of sufficient reason, fine. The atheist can do that as well. The point, obviously, is that the positing of an eternal X doesn't bear any justificatory relation to the claim that God exists.
Naturally, such a claim can be opposed on scientific and philosophical grounds.
04 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerFirst, science has absolutely nothing to say about whether the universe is eternal. Science can trace back the expansion of the universe to some point subsequent to the big bang, but there are no scientific grounds for thinking that prior to the big bang there was literally nothing at all. A point singularity is something, not nothing, and hence any cosmology according to which everything came from a point singularity is literally contradictory.
[b]And, once again, the atheist can claim that the universe is eternal.
Naturally, such a claim can be opposed on scientific and philosophical grounds.[/b]
Second, although you are correct that the claim that something is eternal can be challenged on philosophical grounds, whatever these grounds are they will apply equally to the theist.
Third, my point is not that there is anything that is eternal, but that the atheist can claim with just as much reason as the theist that there is something eternal. That is, the cosmological argument does not support theism in favor of atheism. If (and this is a big 'if'😉 the Cosmological argument can be made to show that something or other is eternal, or the first cause, or uncaused, or whatever, then this "prime mover" could just as well be the universe itself and not God.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat's why I said "that" cosmological argument. You can't deny the claim. It's in the first line! Whether it's a believable statement or not is neither here nor there (I even point out that there are other augmented versions of the original argument that do in fact change this very claim.). Within the context of the particular cosmological argument in my post, claiming that God is uncaused, necessarily implies that either:
You have it all wrong. Not everything that exists is eternal. Some things are 'eternal' and thus by definition do not require a cause, because they have no beginning and no end. i.e. God. However the things that are not eternal and exist, e.g. plants and animals, the universe, etc. do have a beginning and thus require a cause.
1) God does not exist.
2) Not everything that exists is caused (Violating the first premise.)
As far as what is or is not eternal, personally, I think you're talking out your a$$.