Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

by Perry 160 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  Perry: every argument you make for something needing a beginning is a contradiction and an argument against your own belief in a super being with no beginning.

  So carry on, tell us more about the god that can't exist based on your own logic.

  
  Actually I think he is referring to the fact that everything that HAS A BEGINNING has a cause.

  There is nothing in that argument that is referring to subjects which have no beginning.

  So there is nothing that requires the argument to also apply to an eternal God.
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  So, now there are things that have no beginning?

  Please give me a list of these incredible outliers.
• 

  hooberus

  From the O.P.

  "Whatever begins to exist had a cause."

  ONLY if Perry advocated a creator that began to exist (i.e. not eternal) would he be inconsistent-which he is not doing.
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  So any reference to an eternal god would be a moot point in this discussion of of causes of beginnings.
• 

  Coded Logic

  Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

  This is not known to be true. We've never witnessed something "begin to exist" via a cause. Causation only applies to existing materials transitioning from one state into another state (nebulae into stars, trees into furniture, etc.)

  And the only thing we've ever witnessed "beginning to exist" are virtual particle pairs - which don't have a cause as far as we know.

  An expanding universe must of had a beginning.

  Once again, this is not known to be true. And if space-time began with the universe than saying "the universe began to exist" and "the universe has always existed" are identical statements.
• 

  prologos

  • Mephis: "Here's a simple truth. To perform an action, any action, takes time - no matter how brief a moment or how long. Linear time began with the big bang so far as our physics allows us to tell currently. So how is an action performed in the absence of time? ---"

    Why say that time is linear, one dimensional? In our graphs it is always at right angles to any of the three space dimensions. Time is more pervasive than space dimensions, and can therefore predate space. When we speak of time we really mean movement through time, and that does not have to be, and perhaps was not for an eternity.

    M:   "--To perform an action, any action, takes time perform an action, any action, takes time ---"-  true, and there probably was time, plenty of it, stationary time,  for always. and: 
    without movement through time,  no sequencing, who needs a cause?                            Flag Dislike Like
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  Suggesting that something caused something to happen is one thing and based on observations that is a reasonably rational position to take on the face of it. However to then run with that and suggest that cause is then god or that the assumption of a cause is evidence for a god is illogical.

  Why?

  If you want to use logic to suggest that all events have a cause you must stick with using logic and not stop when you have used logic enough to give a baseline that you can then paste any old rubbish to. Therefore an extension of that logic of a first cause must continue on and on for ever. Thus it is logical to state that the first cause argument offers nothing in a way of an explanation insofar that we learn nothing by following that route of inquiry.
• 

  Mephis

  Why say that time is linear, one dimensional? In our graphs it is always at right angles to any of the three space dimensions. Time is more pervasive than space dimensions, and can therefore predate space. When we speak of time we really mean movement through time, and that does not have to be, and perhaps was not for an eternity.

  I stated linear time because I was talking about linear time. If you can demonstrate that intelligent life exists outside of that paradigm, please do. Otherwise I'm not seeing what point you're attempting to make with that post.
• 

  prologos

  Me phis: "If you can demonstrate that intelligent life exists outside of that paradigm, please do. Otherwise I'm not seeing what point you're attempting to make with that post."

  Nowhere did I mention intelligent or organic life did I?

  my point is like yours, in a way, There had to be time to start anything, even the actions that current theories ascribe to a self-starting the universe. My point is there is a huge difference between time as such and our current, compulsory movement through that 4st dimension.
• 

  Mephis

  The post you decided to quote was talking about intelligence and its relationship to linear time. So I remain perplexed as to what point you were hoping to make there.

  But, yeah, sure one can have other conceptions of time. Not sure how that helps with Perry's problem here? A one shot intelligent actor existing between the lines of theoretical physics outermost limits? Deus ex algebra?