|
Post by Sarge on Aug 17, 2022 0:56:57 GMT
If the universe needs a cause, then whatever caused it needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, which needs a cause, hence turtles all the way down. A theist might say their god "always was" but that's silly don't you think? To demand the universe have a cause but not their god? That's an unnecessary complication. There might be a physical cause for the Big Bang that we have yet to discover but that just pushes the question further back and at some point, you have to accept the irrational conclusion, "That things just happen, what the hell." Our universe could be part of a cycle that extends so far back in time that we don't have a meaningful way of describing it. Or it could be that time (causality) didn't exist prior to our universe so the concept of a cause is meaningless, or the cause hasn't happened yet. It could be we are all there ever has been and that nothing existed prior to our universe. Everything that comes into existence needs an external cause because nothing can bring itself into existence. Saying God "always was" is less silly than saying the universe "always was" because, unlike God, the universe is bound by natural law. You seem to understand this by rejecting infinite regress in favor of the notion that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, by nothing, and with no cause for no reason. What is the cause for god? None. So why do you need one for the universe? Because you have been taught to think that way by religion, even if you aren't religious. Has religion shown itself to be the spokesman for an all-powerful being? No. Have they demonstrated supernatural powers? No. Does religion even have any works outside of building really fancy churches by taking money from others? No. Has any god ever done anything without a human middleman? No. Philosophy has no works, has built nothing. Science has given us everything including miracles, believe in that because it's real.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 17, 2022 1:20:14 GMT
The universe is NOT an exception, it came into existence. Not by itself. Not the point, you hit the point just now, when you responded to my second comment. If you make a rule why does your special thing get to be excluded from that rule? The "rule" is that everything that comes into existence needs a cause. so what evidence is there that God did NOT come into existence? Do you see that however you frame this, you are making God and exception. Why is god a special case? (it being the only thing that did not come into existence - which is 100% what you are implying)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 17, 2022 1:24:56 GMT
Everything that comes into existence needs an external cause because nothing can bring itself into existence. Saying God "always was" is less silly than saying the universe "always was" because, unlike God, the universe is bound by natural law. You seem to understand this by rejecting infinite regress in favor of the notion that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, by nothing, and with no cause for no reason. What is the cause for god? None. So why do you need one for the universe? Because you have been taught to think that way by religion, even if you aren't religious. Has religion shown itself to be the spokesman for an all-powerful being? No. Have they demonstrated supernatural powers? No. Does religion even have any works outside of building really fancy churches by taking money from others? No. Has any god ever done anything without a human middleman? No. Philosophy has no works, has built nothing. Science has given us everything including miracles, believe in that because it's real. If it was caused, it's neither God nor an infinitely regressive universe because both are said to be uncaused. Notice how I don't ask what caused the universe when you say it has always existed? It's funny that you say I've been taught to think this way by religion, because I say you should have been taught to think this way just by being alive and observant to the world around you.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 17, 2022 1:29:27 GMT
Not by itself. The "rule" is that everything that comes into existence needs a cause. so what evidence is there that God did NOT come into existence? Do you see that however you frame this, you are making God and exception. Why is god a special case? (it being the only thing that did not come into existence - which is 100% what you are implying) If it came into existence, it would not be the first cause. Whether the first cause is God, the universe itself, or something else, is an entirely different argument. The evidence shows a first cause, not necessarily God. But if you want to call it God, you probably shouldn't ask what caused it.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 17, 2022 1:35:39 GMT
so what evidence is there that God did NOT come into existence? Do you see that however you frame this, you are making God and exception. Why is god a special case? (it being the only thing that did not come into existence - which is 100% what you are implying) If it came into existence, it would not be the first cause. Whether the first cause is God, the universe itself, or something else, is an entirely different argument. The evidence shows a first cause, not necessarily God. But if you want to call it God, you probably shouldn't ask what caused it. How does the evidence show a first cause?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 17, 2022 1:43:05 GMT
If it came into existence, it would not be the first cause. Whether the first cause is God, the universe itself, or something else, is an entirely different argument. The evidence shows a first cause, not necessarily God. But if you want to call it God, you probably shouldn't ask what caused it. How does the evidence show a first cause? Because you exist. And because nothing pops into existence from nothing, by nothing, and with no cause for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 17, 2022 2:23:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 17, 2022 2:40:05 GMT
Because you exist. And because nothing pops into existence from nothing, by nothing, and with no cause for no reason. You are still special pleading as God is the only thing that does not need to start somewhere, also An infinitely regressive chain of causes also has no beginning. Applying our understanding of quantum mechanics to the "real world" has proven to be extremely difficult if not impossible. I believe it was either Neils Bohr or Richard Feynman who said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics." Regardless, the song remains the same, for "fluctuations in the quantum vacuum" are things that not only exist, but they exist in an environment that also exists, and it all operates on some sort of system that exists. Any way you slice it, you're going to end up with either a prime mover or a lot of turtles.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 17, 2022 2:40:46 GMT
What is the cause for god? None. So why do you need one for the universe? Because you have been taught to think that way by religion, even if you aren't religious. Has religion shown itself to be the spokesman for an all-powerful being? No. Have they demonstrated supernatural powers? No. Does religion even have any works outside of building really fancy churches by taking money from others? No. Has any god ever done anything without a human middleman? No. Philosophy has no works, has built nothing. Science has given us everything including miracles, believe in that because it's real. If it was caused, it's neither God nor an infinitely regressive universe because both are said to be uncaused. Notice how I don't ask what caused the universe when you say it has always existed? It's funny that you say I've been taught to think this way by religion, because I say you should have been taught to think this way just by being alive and observant to the world around you. Once upon a time we believed gods must have created the world. Then we learned that everyday stuff was made of small stuff. And eventually we learned that everything is the same thing, energy. Then we learned that particles don't exist at all, they are charges in a field. We may not yet fully understand the real world but we know for certain it defies our intuition. Your certainty that everything has a cause is how your brain interprets the world and it's good enough to get along fine but our intuition is wrong about a lot of things. 2+2 doesn't always equal 4. The rate of time depends on the observer. Size and shape of things may change for different observers. Matter is more like a Star Trek holodeck than most might guess. Light doesn't just let you see; it's how the universe communicates with itself. And space-time itself is exempt from the light speed limit. You quoted Krauss, I believe it was him that said, and I'm paraphrasing, that he could name everything that everything is made of and he found no god.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 17, 2022 2:44:53 GMT
You are still special pleading as God is the only thing that does not need to start somewhere, also An infinitely regressive chain of causes also has no beginning. Applying our understanding of quantum mechanics to the "real world" has proven to be extremely difficult if not impossible. I believe it was either Neils Bohr or Richard Feynman who said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics." Regardless, the song remains the same, for "fluctuations in the quantum vacuum" are things that not only exist, but they exist in an environment that also exists, and it all operates on some sort of system that exists. Any way you slice it, you're going to end up with either a prime mover or a lot of turtles. But our understanding of God is better?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 17, 2022 5:43:19 GMT
If it was caused, it's neither God nor an infinitely regressive universe because both are said to be uncaused. Notice how I don't ask what caused the universe when you say it has always existed? It's funny that you say I've been taught to think this way by religion, because I say you should have been taught to think this way just by being alive and observant to the world around you. Once upon a time we believed gods must have created the world. Then we learned that everyday stuff was made of small stuff. And eventually we learned that everything is the same thing, energy. Then we learned that particles don't exist at all, they are charges in a field. We may not yet fully understand the real world but we know for certain it defies our intuition. Your certainty that everything has a cause is how your brain interprets the world and it's good enough to get along fine but our intuition is wrong about a lot of things. 2+2 doesn't always equal 4. The rate of time depends on the observer. Size and shape of things may change for different observers. Matter is more like a Star Trek holodeck than most might guess. Light doesn't just let you see; it's how the universe communicates with itself. And space-time itself is exempt from the light speed limit. You quoted Krauss, I believe it was him that said, and I'm paraphrasing, that he could name everything that everything is made of and he found no god. Remember when that one dude got in trouble for saying the earth revolved around the sun? If we're imbeciles in hindsight, what does that say about us today? 2+2 will always equal 4 because they are the same thing. It's a priori. If you can't rely on your own rationale, you may as well believe in a sky fairy. "he could name everything that everything is made of and he found no god"But everything is not made of everything. If matter is a limited quantity that can't be created or destroyed, then everything is everything, literally no more or no less. I'm reminded of an old joke about a scientist who figures out how to create people from inorganic matter, so he went to God to show him, bent down to scoop up a handful of dirt, and God said, "Oh, no. Get your own dirt." Point being, even a holodeck requires a precursor.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 17, 2022 5:47:32 GMT
An infinitely regressive chain of causes also has no beginning. Applying our understanding of quantum mechanics to the "real world" has proven to be extremely difficult if not impossible. I believe it was either Neils Bohr or Richard Feynman who said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics." Regardless, the song remains the same, for "fluctuations in the quantum vacuum" are things that not only exist, but they exist in an environment that also exists, and it all operates on some sort of system that exists. Any way you slice it, you're going to end up with either a prime mover or a lot of turtles. But our understanding of God is better? I never said that, but someone once told me, "God isn't a big riddle." I tend to agree.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,292
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 17, 2022 8:39:46 GMT
But anyways, I would not go against my better judgement...I'd refuse. Besides...there's a good chance it would be a trap anyways and he was just 'testing' me/us/you, you know, like Abraham. Although Abraham of course didn't refuse.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 17, 2022 10:35:58 GMT
But anyways, I would not go against my better judgement...I'd refuse. Besides...there's a good chance it would be a trap anyways and he was just 'testing' me/us/you, you know, like Abraham. Although Abraham of course didn't refuse. Right...so one could say the story was there for a lesson. We would now know the God of the Bible would try to trick people into doing wrong.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,292
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 17, 2022 13:45:52 GMT
Although Abraham of course didn't refuse. Right...so one could say the story was there for a lesson. We would now know the God of the Bible would try to trick people into doing wrong. Kierkegaard wrote a lot on that topic. He saw Abraham as a paragon of faith - he knew murdering his son was an evil deed yet he fully believed God was good and so following his command would, all appearances to the contrary, turn out ok. Turned out he was right but I certainly wouldn't want to be Isaac in that situation!
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 17, 2022 21:25:04 GMT
Once upon a time we believed gods must have created the world. Then we learned that everyday stuff was made of small stuff. And eventually we learned that everything is the same thing, energy. Then we learned that particles don't exist at all, they are charges in a field. We may not yet fully understand the real world but we know for certain it defies our intuition. Your certainty that everything has a cause is how your brain interprets the world and it's good enough to get along fine but our intuition is wrong about a lot of things. 2+2 doesn't always equal 4. The rate of time depends on the observer. Size and shape of things may change for different observers. Matter is more like a Star Trek holodeck than most might guess. Light doesn't just let you see; it's how the universe communicates with itself. And space-time itself is exempt from the light speed limit. You quoted Krauss, I believe it was him that said, and I'm paraphrasing, that he could name everything that everything is made of and he found no god. Remember when that one dude got in trouble for saying the earth revolved around the sun? If we're imbeciles in hindsight, what does that say about us today? 2+2 will always equal 4 because they are the same thing. It's a priori. If you can't rely on your own rationale, you may as well believe in a sky fairy. "he could name everything that everything is made of and he found no god"But everything is not made of everything. If matter is a limited quantity that can't be created or destroyed, then everything is everything, literally no more or no less. I'm reminded of an old joke about a scientist who figures out how to create people from inorganic matter, so he went to God to show him, bent down to scoop up a handful of dirt, and God said, "Oh, no. Get your own dirt." Point being, even a holodeck requires a precursor. You can't trust your own perceptions, that's why science has peer review. It's why we test things and then someone else tests it and then someone else tests it to check the first two. Religion should try it.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 17, 2022 21:42:58 GMT
Remember when that one dude got in trouble for saying the earth revolved around the sun? If we're imbeciles in hindsight, what does that say about us today? 2+2 will always equal 4 because they are the same thing. It's a priori. If you can't rely on your own rationale, you may as well believe in a sky fairy. "he could name everything that everything is made of and he found no god"But everything is not made of everything. If matter is a limited quantity that can't be created or destroyed, then everything is everything, literally no more or no less. I'm reminded of an old joke about a scientist who figures out how to create people from inorganic matter, so he went to God to show him, bent down to scoop up a handful of dirt, and God said, "Oh, no. Get your own dirt." Point being, even a holodeck requires a precursor. You can't trust your own perceptions, that's why science has peer review. It's why we test things and then someone else tests it and then someone else tests it to check the first two. Religion should try it. The thing about the claims of religion is that they are intensely personal and subjective, we can reject all the claims in the bible and in all religions that try to teach us about the physical world as in nearly all cases our knowledge has moved on from that. The claims that are left are about living a 'good' life. Now I know that this is not what happens in reality, most religious people make claims about the nature of things that cannot be backed up and in fact are already disproven, my contention is that they are mistreating religion and representing it incorrectly. If admin had taken into account the teachings around Ain Soph Ur, he would not be in this conversation and his god would be both simple and complex.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 17, 2022 22:13:49 GMT
Remember when that one dude got in trouble for saying the earth revolved around the sun? If we're imbeciles in hindsight, what does that say about us today? 2+2 will always equal 4 because they are the same thing. It's a priori. If you can't rely on your own rationale, you may as well believe in a sky fairy. "he could name everything that everything is made of and he found no god"But everything is not made of everything. If matter is a limited quantity that can't be created or destroyed, then everything is everything, literally no more or no less. I'm reminded of an old joke about a scientist who figures out how to create people from inorganic matter, so he went to God to show him, bent down to scoop up a handful of dirt, and God said, "Oh, no. Get your own dirt." Point being, even a holodeck requires a precursor. You can't trust your own perceptions, that's why science has peer review. It's why we test things and then someone else tests it and then someone else tests it to check the first two. Religion should try it. How do you expect agreement about things that are dependent upon individual perception?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 17, 2022 22:16:25 GMT
You can't trust your own perceptions, that's why science has peer review. It's why we test things and then someone else tests it and then someone else tests it to check the first two. Religion should try it. The thing about the claims of religion is that they are intensely personal and subjective, we can reject all the claims in the bible and in all religions that try to teach us about the physical world as in nearly all cases our knowledge has moved on from that. The claims that are left are about living a 'good' life. Now I know that this is not what happens in reality, most religious people make claims about the nature of things that cannot be backed up and in fact are already disproven, my contention is that they are mistreating religion and representing it incorrectly. If admin had taken into account the teachings around Ain Soph Ur, he would not be in this conversation and his god would be both simple and complex. I’ve said little to nothing about religion, and I’ve made no attempts to define God as anything but the first cause. Perhaps your contention should be that you are misrepresenting the argument.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 17, 2022 22:26:25 GMT
The thing about the claims of religion is that they are intensely personal and subjective, we can reject all the claims in the bible and in all religions that try to teach us about the physical world as in nearly all cases our knowledge has moved on from that. The claims that are left are about living a 'good' life. Now I know that this is not what happens in reality, most religious people make claims about the nature of things that cannot be backed up and in fact are already disproven, my contention is that they are mistreating religion and representing it incorrectly. If admin had taken into account the teachings around Ain Soph Ur, he would not be in this conversation and his god would be both simple and complex. I’ve said little to nothing about religion, and I’ve made no attempts to define God as anything but the first cause. Perhaps your contention should be that you are misrepresenting the argument. I am happy with my contention, you have missed the point the whole time.
|
|