eternal universe or god?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
… Your argument seems to be that "the beginning" has to be at the same time.

Perhaps this is not necessarily the meaning
.…

But what is meant by "the beginning" in everyday language is generally the start of something with all parts starting either at exactly the same time or “approximately” at the same time and certainly, by any normal s ...[text shortened]... ent way from this but that just means that this hinds of logical inconsistency in the bible.[/b]

[b]==================================
But what is meant by "the beginning" in everyday language is generally the start of something with all parts starting either at exactly the same time or “approximately” at the same time and certainly, by any normal stretch of the imagination, NOT the various parts starting at various point in time with BILLIONS of years between them!
============================================

I am so short on time. But what is meant in everyday language for something to "rise"?

We speak of "sunrise". Actually the sun doesn't rise. The earth rather rotates.

The language is imprecise according to modern standards - "sunrise". But we use it in everyday speech. It communicates.


The language of the Bible is not unscientific. It is simply at places imprecise according to modern standards.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think that has convincingly been demonstrated to me as impossible. So I regard an infinite regress of this kind to be unlikely.

By who? What is the demonstration?

Mathematically, I believe that I have also been persuaded that we could not arrive at TODAY if time has an infinite past.
Ever hear of the famous Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise? Did it persuade you too? Don't be too quick to judge something you don't understand.

It would take infinity to traverse infinity. But we are at the time of now - today. At the present time I am persuaded that this argues against an ever existing universe.
I am curious, do you apply the same argument to God? Or is he finite?

Do you also realize that you have beliefs directly opposite to knightmeister who believes that finite dimensions are impossible?

I don't know what this means.

I am not sure that you yourself know what this means.
I know perfectly well what it means. The fact that you don't only shows that you cannot possibly have exhausted the possibilities, so your conclusion by exclusion is invalid.

I see absolutely no reason to assume that all events have causes, further I see no reason to assume that a universe with a finite time dimension necessarily lives in a higher level time dimension in which it is 'created'. In fact I find those to be totally unfounded assumptions with no supporting evidence or logic whatsoever.

I agree with the limitation of human language to express something in the divine realm.

So "outside of time" or "before the universe" are adaquate phrases to express what is beyond our ability to completely comprehend.
Actually they are not only inadequate but misleading. Why not simply say "I cant comprehend it?" Instead you are pretending that you not only can comprehend it but can hypothesize and even make logical deductions about it.
Why did you say "before" not "after"?

Sounds to me like you are afraid to commit to any specific one scientific theory.

It sounds to me like you want very badly to keep all options open and not commit to any science theory too strongly.

So you are now a Beginningless - Big Bang exponent? Or you are a Big Bounce advocate or what ?

Why don't you just admit that you are first and foremost an ATHEIST? The rest is just minor details.[/b]
It is the way of science to decidedly not commit to anything based on the role of the dice or a pet like or dislike.
As I have said, there are in fact no scientific theories about the early stages of the Big Bang. There are only hypotheses.
I don't think my atheism itself has any bearing on it. My parents, both Christian, would have identical views on the Big Bang or any other scientific theory.

Because it is outside the realm of scientific inquiry and discovery. Science, among other things, is a search for causes.
But once you admit the existence of a rule based system including cause/effect, aren't you decidedly putting it in the realm of science? Why do you put it "outside the realm of scientific inquiry and discovery"? Are you perhaps in league with knightmeister and his "my God is illogical".

But a miracle without a miracle worker I think is senseless. I think it requires much MORE "faith" to believe in a causeless miracle poping up from nothing. "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

Out of nothing nothing comes.
Yet nobody in this thread has actually suggested that 'Something from nothing' is a viable option. Yet you and knightmeister keep on repeating the strawman like you just cant help it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
By who? What is the demonstration?

[b]Mathematically, I believe that I have also been persuaded that we could not arrive at TODAY if time has an infinite past.
Ever hear of the famous Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise? Did it persuade you too? Don't be too quick to judge something you don't understand.

It would take infinity to tra eister keep on repeating the strawman like you just cant help it.

[/b]

===============================

I see absolutely no reason to assume that all events have causes

===================================

David Hume was a sturdy skeptic of the Bible, yet he would not agree with you on that point. He would discribe your position as an "absurd" one. He wrote:

"I never assserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."

[David Hume, in J.Y.T. Greig, ed, The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols. (New York, 1983, 1:187]





[

Originally posted by jaywill
============================================
That the heavens (Universe) and the Earth didn't start at the same time. Universe went into being for some 14 billion of years ago, the Earth considerably later, for 4.6 billion of years.

If not even the first verse of the bible is correct, who can then anyone expect the rest of the book being true?
===== iew does not necessitate the falsification of the utterance of Genesis 1:1.

Still, the bible doesn't give any answers in the first verse as you quoted it. You have to interpret it heavily to match of what we know today. You can interpret *any* genisis of *any* religion in a similar way and then argue that it is true.

The bibel is not a book of physics. If you use it like that you have to admit it is a quite bad one anyway.

Originally posted by jaywill
===============================

I see absolutely no reason to assume that all events have causes

===================================

David Hume was a sturdy skeptic of the Bible, yet he would not agree with you on that point. He would discribe your position as an "absurd" one. He wrote:

"I never assserted so absurd a proposition as that some . Greig, ed, The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols. (New York, 1983, 1:187]

I know next to nothing about David Hume, but a quick browse on Wikipeadia yielded this:
"However, Hume’s views on the concept of causation are much disputed."

As for the claim that you quoted, he is not here to defend it, and it is a stupid statement to say the least.

Do you have any argument that disputes my claim, or is finding a derisive quote from a 300 year old philosopher the best you can do?

If we were discussing whether or not the earth was flat, would you accept statement from 300 year old philosophers that thought that a spherical earth was an absurd a proposition?