However , even a causeless Universe that had a beginning would not have "always been here".The universe may have always been here expanding as it is now and then shrinking to a singularity before exploding again into the next cycle. This cycle may be infinite so the universe may very well have always been here.
Unless 'always' also had a beginning in which case it is possible.[/b]
Originally posted by 667joeMatter cant be destroyed-only changed. Is that evidence for the universe always being here?
The universe may have always been here expanding as it is now and then shrinking to a singularity before exploding again into the next cycle. This cycle may be infinite so the universe may very well have always been here.
2 edits
Originally posted by 667joePhilosophers are in the habit of updating their philosophic arguments. The form of the (cosmological or Kalaam) arguement that you are quoting went out of style long ago. I don't think it is used any more. And this can be attributed to astute arguements of counter philosophies.
If everything requires a cause, what was the cause of god? If god does not require a cause and has always been here, then why can't the universe have always been here also?
So then:
"Everything requires a cause." I do not believe is the modern version of that argument for God.
I think the form of the argument these days goes like this:
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause."
Something like that. See the difference?
Now to the definiition of God according to one philosophy:
"God is one for whom a greater cannot be imagined."
A God who had a beginning is not as great as a God who had no beginning. So a created God or a God who came into existence cannot be God. For God is one for whom a greater cannot be imagined.
Of course if you're trusting of the word of God which I am you can by pass this philosophical argumentation and go to Psalm 90 which tells us:
"Before the mountains were brought forth, and before You gave birth to the earth or the world, Indeed from eternity to eternity You are God." (Psalm 90:2)
God here is "from eternity." God always was. Now if that blows the circuits of our brains and gets our philosophical jaws tight, if it tees us off, makes us feel a little small or to scratch our heads, wrinkle our eyebrows or drop our mouths open like "HUUH ??? ALWAYS WAS?? How can THAT be?"
Well. get use to it. Some of us choose to exclaim "Praise God !".
Originally posted by 667joeI spawned an immaterial thought because there is an element to me that is immaterial. If I was made up of just brain messages that shot back and forth and formed thoughts then those methods that my brain would use to think would be random and illogical. Something must be governing the method in which I even begin to think. There must be laws of logic and reason already in place before I can even use my brain, otherwise there would be no order because there would be no laws for my brain to abide by.
You are wrong. For example, you are material and yet you spawned a thought which is immaterial. But, without material (matter /energy which Einstein showed to be equivalent) you could not have a thought.
Originally posted by 667joeAlternatively time may be finite in which case the universe has always been here.
The universe may have always been here expanding as it is now and then shrinking to a singularity before exploding again into the next cycle. This cycle may be infinite so the universe may very well have always been here.
In fact as argued long and hard in other threads on the topic, the concept of a here prior to the universe is just begging for a redefinition of 'universe' to include that prior 'here'. The Universe has always been here by definition.
Originally posted by jaywillWhich is no less of an assumption than the prior version.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
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 conclusion), it says nothing about the existence of God.
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.
That all depends on your definition of 'great' which as far as I can tell is simply manipulated to suit the philosopher.
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.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are suggesting that you don’t believe or see the evidence that material things need a cause, but you won’t come out and say exactly what you DO mean, from what I can see. Are material things evolved, created, or are they just that way, with no need to have a beginning or cause..? Was there ever a first man, or a first product?
Then he is not the God that is described by most Christians.
[b]Everything that is material requires a cause.
Easy to keep repeating the claim, but as long as it remains an unsubstantiated claim it cannot be used to support an argument (unless you clearly state that your conclusions are dependent on the assumption).
Logic and reason do not, ...[text shortened]... e beginning.
Or rather it is independent of time and so talk of its begging is nonsensical.[/b]
And referring to immaterial things... "Or rather it is independent of time and so talk of its begging is nonsensical." - So you are saying that it just is? It is outside of the realm of time so it needs no beginning or cause, is that correct?
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the point is is the assumption valid or not.
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]
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead=============================
Alternatively time may be finite in which case the universe has always been here.
In fact as argued long and hard in other threads on the topic, the concept of a here prior to the universe is just begging for a redefinition of 'universe' to include that prior 'here'. The Universe has always been here by definition.
The Universe has always been here by definition.
===============================
Is non-existence part of this "universe" that you imagine?
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillAmen!!
Philosophers are in the habit of updating their philosophic arguments. The form of the (cosmological or Kalaam) arguement that you are quoting went out of style long ago. I don't think it is used any more. And this can be attributed to astute arguements of counter philosophies.
So then:
[b]"Everything requires a cause." I do not believe is the m /b]
Well. get use to it. Some of us choose to exclaim "Praise God !".[/b]
But none of this is ever going to be good enough for an atheist. They want solid proof that is independent of God and everything that He made or created or caused etc. They want Christians to prove that God exists using logic and reason and science only.
So the argument that I keep using and they have no logical answers for is where does something that is immaterial come from? How does it begin? Logic and reason HAVE to be immaterial because if they are just things that happen in our brains then they could be random with no order because we do not have identical brains, meaning there would be no absolutes (some atheists think this). So a lot of the atheists will end up saying that anything that is immaterial just is, and that it needs no cause or beginning, assuming that they first believe that immaterial things can exist. But that makes them arbitrary because they refuse to accept God under those same exact terms. They want Christians to prove that God exists using logic, reason, and science, yet they themselves cannot account for where logic and reason come from in the first place, it just is. How can you account for logic without using logic to do so? How do you account for God without using God to do so? Yet they insist that Christians must do precisely that or else be unscientific etc. But science goes out the window when it comes to logic and reason, they just are.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDefine "universe".
Alternatively time may be finite in which case the universe has always been here.
In fact as argued long and hard in other threads on the topic, the concept of a here prior to the universe is just begging for a redefinition of 'universe' to include that prior 'here'. The Universe has always been here by definition.
2 edits
Originally posted by SharpeMother[/b] I know that the atheists want God in a test tube so they can examine this "thing".
Amen!!
But none of this is ever going to be good enough for an atheist. They want solid proof that is independent of God and everything that He made or created or caused etc. They want Christians to prove that God exists using logic and reason and science only.
So the argument that I keep using and they have no logical answers for is [b]where do ...[text shortened]... cientific etc. But science goes out the window when it comes to logic and reason, they just are.
If I don't hand God over to them in a test tube they will jest about the Speghetti Monster or the Pink Unicorn.