by nvrgnbk 23 Replies latest jw friends
real one:
Boy, im glad i believe in God because just having to read all of that would make me wonder if i exist
Never mind. This thread is for people who are capable of understanding and discussing basic philosophical arguments. No need for you to worry your little head about it.
fd- proverbs 10:2-3 Sensible thoughts lead you to do right; foolish thoughts lead you to do wrong. Fools show their stupidity by the way they live; it's easy to see they have no sense.
Real one, fo you ever think for yourself without having to quote scripture? Not that I have a problem with scripture itself, but you seem unable to elucidate anything on your own.
Burn
i love quoting scripture it is the best language on earth!
BTS,
The argument is weak for the following reasons:
Special pleading, however you cut it, the argument is that everything had a cause except for the proposed first cause.
The argument offers nothing to prove that the first cause is god nor does it address the possibility of multiple gods being first cause.
Your argument that it could in an alternate reality shows that you have failed to understand the authors point. The point being made is that if you accept the statement that there are no real infinites and that this proves god you have to then, by definition, accept that god is not infinite either, not in love or justice or understanding or power or any of the abilities to which theists commonly ascribe to god.
Whilst empirical scientific data may be paradoxical, to then equate this with the paradox inherent in the god hypothesis is laughable. The fundamental nature of the god most theists propose is at best contradictory but since there is no empirical data to even call contradictory let alone paradoxical then there is no equivalency as you claim.
Sure they do. But there is no scientific evidence, which puts them on, at most, equal footing with postulating a creative divinity.
Err, no. If anyone is postulating observational consequences then there is no comparison with a postulating a divine being, They are suggesting that there may be empirical data to prove (or disprove) their hypothesis. Unless you are telling me you have empirical proof of the divine?!
It is timeless existence. This is how God exists
Therefore, since Craig argues that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality
This argument is a good one
So in other words your god doesn't exist in reality! ...At last something we can agree on!
God exist you will find out soon...its good you spend so much time on the subject though Caedes, it makes me feel like you want to believe but something is stopping you, just keep searching you will find Him, He is closer than you think
Yeah RO,
I'm sure your 'proof' will convince me, once you actually supply it of course.
I'm afraid the only thing stopping me is an overwhelming lack of evidence.
Caedes,
Special pleading, however you cut it, the argument is that everything had a cause except for the proposed first cause.
It is not special pleading. Everything in our spacetime has a cause. It would be special pleading if we wanted to point to something inside that. What I am saying is that causality may have no meaning outside our spacetime. It is not a special case, because it is not part of the same set.
The argument offers nothing to prove that the first cause is god nor does it address the possibility of multiple gods being first cause.
My argument is not intended to prove anything. It is intended to point out the flaws in the argument of the author in the original post.
Your argument that it could in an alternate reality shows that you have failed to understand the authors point. The point being made is that if you accept the statement that there are no real infinites and that this proves god you have to then, by definition, accept that god is not infinite either, not in love or justice or understanding or power or any of the abilities to which theists commonly ascribe to god.
That is not the author's point. The point is that there can be no infinite sequences. It makes no reference to the properties of a thing, be it God or something else.
Err, no. If anyone is postulating observational consequences then there is no comparison with a postulating a divine being, They are suggesting that there may be empirical data to prove (or disprove) their hypothesis. Unless you are telling me you have empirical proof of the divine?!
You don't get my point. My point, referencing Hawking, is that there are no observational consequences before a certain point in the history of the universe. Therefore no empirical evidence exists -- nor can it. Therefore any postulating won't be empirically provable. This puts all the postulates on the same footing regarding empirical evidence, including postulating the divine.
So in other words your god doesn't exist in reality! ...At last something we can agree on
Nice work joining together statements from different parts of my post to mak me say something I didn't say.
Burn
It is not special pleading. Everything in our spacetime has a cause. It would be special pleading if we wanted to point to something inside that. What I am saying is that causality may have no meaning outside our spacetime. It is not a special case, because it is not part of the same set.
Just because you claim this first cause is outside of our spacetime in no way changes the fact that it is special pleading.
It is intended to point out the flaws in the argument of the author in the original post.
And it is my intention to point out the flaws in your argument, which that line did.
It makes no reference to the properties of a thing, be it God or something else.
Ahh, so nothing can be infinite except god, but it's not special pleading because I said so?
You don't get my point. My point, referencing Hawking, is that there are no observational consequences before a certain point in the history of the universe. Therefore no empirical evidence exists -- nor can it. Therefore any postulating won't be empirically provable. This puts all the postulates on the same footing regarding empirical evidence, including postulating the divine.
I did get your point and I would be very surprised if the aforementioned scientists manage to prove Hawking wrong, I was making the point that there is a huge difference between looking for observable data to prove a hypothesis and just making stuff up with no evidence whatsoever and that the two hypotheses are not on the same footing at all. They are admitting that they could be proved wrong (by the evidence not being there or the evidence not backing up their hypothesis) I am not saying they are right, just pointing out that that you are wrong to suggest any kind of equivalence between real science and guesswork on the nature of god.
Nice work joining together statements from different parts of my post to mak me say something I didn't say.
It must have been the three seperate quote boxes and the highlighting to indicate the quote from the original text that made it look like I was stringing together what you said. I even actually stated "in other words" and added a smiley in recognition of the fact that I knew you probably didn't agree with my take on your quotes.
Even so, I still only quoted you. If you have changed your mind then feel free to say so.
Just because you claim this first cause is outside of our spacetime in no way changes the fact that it is special pleading.
Please elaborate.
Ahh, so nothing can be infinite except god, but it's not special pleading because I said so?
Not infinite: eternal, as in timeless. Time began with the universe, and if there was no time, there can be no infinite regression. Therefore, by defintion, the universe came from the eternal, unless someone can prove there was Time before the universe. Of course, as temporal beings, the concept of eternality is really not possible for us to wrap our minds around completely. As the author in the OP wrote: But this does not prove that such a thing is impossible, merely that the human mind cannot adequately conceive of it. I like the way this quote sums it up: A fish cannot comprehend the existence of water. He is too deeply immersed in it.
Again, as for special pleading, please elaborate.
I was making the point that there is a huge difference between looking for observable data to prove a hypothesis and just making stuff up with no evidence whatsoever and that the two hypotheses are not on the same footing at all.
Fine, then what if the hypothesis is that the universe was the result of the act of a conciousness as Craig puts forth? How is that any different than some of the other thoroughly unprovable hypotheses put forth regarding the origin of the universe? There is a literal firewall on empirical data at the time the universe was before a certain age. Quantum effects hide the data. There may not be any "data" there. Where there can be no data anything you come up with is essentially made up. Even provable hypotheses are essentially "made up". It is just that later on they prove to have predictive, and not just explanatory, value.
I even actually stated "in other words" and added a smiley in recognition of the fact that I knew you probably didn't agree with my take on your quotes.
Ah, that one went right over my head.
Burn
