Originally posted by twhitehead
Which is no less of an assumption than the prior version.
[b]The universe began to exist.
Another assumption.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
So, a conclusion based on two assumptions. I agree the conclusion would be correct if the assumptions are correct, but then who wouldn't? But even if the assumptions are correct (and thus the got to do with your own belief in God? The God you believe in is something quite different.[/b]
I think the point is is the assumption valid or not.
You say the premise is incorrect ?
You seem to assert that everything that begins to exist does not have a cause?
Okay. But don't then turn around and claim to be for science because if the premise is wrong, I think that goes a long way to destroy doing science.
=============================
The universe began to exist. Another assumption.
===============================
Perhaps. But at least for now the current scientific concensus is that the universe began to exist.
=======================
Therefore the universe has a cause.
So, a conclusion based on two assumptions. I agree the conclusion would be correct if the assumptions are correct, but then who wouldn't? But even if the assumptions are correct (and thus the conclusion), it says nothing about the existence of God.
============================
I didn't take the post that far.
Wouldn't you have to prove that the premise is incorrect ?
You have to disprove that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Formally I don't think it would be sufficient to just say "That's an assumption."
You would have to demonstrate the falsity of the assumption.
Go to it. See if you can.
===========================
Now to the definiition of God according to one philosophy:
"God is one for whom a greater cannot be imagined."
But is that your philosophy? If not then how is it relevant?
A God who had a beginning is not as great as a God who had no beginning.
==================================
I'll think about that.
================================
That all depends on your definition of 'great' which as far as I can tell is simply manipulated to suit the philosopher.
===========================
That's probably a point.
================================
But I ask again, what has this got to do with your own belief in God? The God you believe in is something quite different.
==============================
I am not sure what you mean.
I think an eternal universe is not as great as an eternal living "Person".
So when someone says "Maybe the material universe always was" I have two reactions.
1.) The evidence at this state does not point to an eternally existing universe.
2.) Even if it was eternal it is not as great as an eternal living God. Life I regard as on a higher level than non life - "greater".
By one definition God is one for whom a greater cannot be imagined. An existing God is greater than a non-existing God. So if God is non-existent a greater can be imagined.
I don't know of I am getting to your issue. But in the mean time, I'll wait to see you prove that some things begin to exist yet have no cause.