Thread Rating:

Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
November 12th, 2011 at 1:44:41 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

It is logic that drives me to a belief in God as the first cause.



Is it?

Quote:

By the way where is your proof that the universe cannot end?



To begin with, the law of conservation of matter and energy. matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Garnabby
Garnabby
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
November 12th, 2011 at 1:46:44 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

It is logic that drives me to a belief in God as the first cause. I agree the first cause does not need be a sentient being, but there are very serious problems with holding that position, more on that later.

By the way where is your proof that the universe cannot end?


Very simple, according to Hawking (and every one else who realized that on his own before he published it in his first popularist book).

Loosely, the basic problem with the complete end of everything is the same as with its biblical creation: How to start time without even a concept of it; or how to end time while it's still going on, as a process within time?

I suggest youze read up on at least the basic current physics and corresponding metaphyics, which must be second-nature to any such god, before becoming too-ensconced in the various religious debates alone. (Or the physics alone.)
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
Garnabby
Garnabby
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
November 12th, 2011 at 1:56:22 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

To begin with, the law of conservation of matter and energy. matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.



I think that's a procrustean argument, as that is what is being challenged/debated here.
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
November 12th, 2011 at 4:41:32 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed


To begin with, the law of conservation of matter and energy. matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.


It can be transformed into something, that is not a Universe though, can't it? E.g., a singularity, or lots of empty space, curled into a Planck-sized nugget (space curvature has energy), or just a beam of light. The currently accepted view in scientific community is that the Universe *will* end eventually, one way or another.


Quote: Garnabby

Very simple, according to Hawking (and every one else who realized that on his own before he published it in his first popularist book).

Loosely, the basic problem with the complete end of everything is the same as with its biblical creation: How to start time without even a concept of it; or how to end time while it's still going on, as a process within time?


I think, you are misreading Hawking. While whether or not time will ever come to an end may be debatable. It definitely had had the beginning (Big Bang) according to any viable cosmological theory currently in existence.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Garnabby
Garnabby
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
November 12th, 2011 at 6:17:19 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

It can be transformed into something, that is not a Universe though, can't it? E.g., a singularity, or lots of empty space, curled into a Planck-sized nugget (space curvature has energy), or just a beam of light. The currently accepted view in scientific community is that the Universe *will* end eventually, one way or another.


More to the point, what has such matter to explicitly do with the temporal? (Start and end per se.)
Quote: weaselman

I think, you are misreading Hawking.


That's why i wrote, "loosely" re-stating that argument (for the purpose at-hand). Though i'm not at all sure what you're getting at here.
Quote: weaselman

While whether or not time will ever come to an end may be debatable. It definitely had had the beginning (Big Bang) according to any viable cosmological theory currently in existence.


And in which further process(es) of time might all of that lay? Up to the [first cause/final effect], by definition.

That there was, or not, a "big bang" doesn't mean that that was even the "beginning" of something. What's the beginning of infinity in which sense?
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
November 12th, 2011 at 6:48:59 PM permalink
The cause of the Big Bang was God, and therefore God is the universe. Very Deistic take there, FrGamble. And lets say we allow it as an axiom for an argument, it doesn't mean there is a personal, knowable god who takes part in the day to day lives of human beings.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Garnabby
Garnabby
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
November 12th, 2011 at 8:27:15 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

The cause of the Big Bang was God, and therefore God is the universe.


Or conversely then, God resulted from the "big bang", so the universe is God?
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 10295
November 12th, 2011 at 8:44:15 PM permalink
Quote: Garnabby

Or conversely then, God resulted from the "big bang", so the universe is God?



The big bang is the result of God exploding. (with great power, comes great explosions)
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
November 12th, 2011 at 11:56:21 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

The cause of the Big Bang was God, and therefore God is the universe. Very Deistic take there, FrGamble. And lets say we allow it as an axiom for an argument, it doesn't mean there is a personal, knowable god who takes part in the day to day lives of human beings.



Actually it sounds more like a pantheistic take on the universe and I do not hold it at all. I believe in as you say: a personal, knowable God who loves us. Before we get into that though I want to make sure I understand what you are asking. You are not denying the true axiom concering the logical need for a first cause. The first cause, which does not have to be a person or entity, is a metaphysical necessity. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe begins to exist. The universe has a cause that does not have a beginning, but is rather the first cause of everything. This logic is not really in question, what you really want to get at is why should we believe that this first cause is a personal God? Good question.

There seem to be three possibilities. The first being that the universe has always existed, so the first cause is identical to the universe and all matter. This would be the take that God is the universe and the universe is God. This is not correct in my opinion for many reasons. The two remaining options would be(1) a creation ex nihilo by an entity of some kind or (2) a spontenous existence ex nihilo by mysterious and non personal forces.

There are always two parts of every cause, the material cause and the efficent cause. The material cause being the stuff out of which something is made and the efficient cause which is something that produces its effect in being. The artist is the efficient cause of the statue the marble is the material cause. In both of the remaining options the material cause is provided in a baffling and mysterious way. In the case of some entity who actively and purposefuly creates we have our efficient cause supplied. In the non-personal accidental springing to being of all existence we are totally dumbfounded and left without either the material or efficient cause. It is hard enough to get our minds around the mystery of where the material for existence came from without compounding the difficulty in trying to imagine how it came into existence without an efficent cause. This is a small part of why I believe in a personal and knowable and loveable God.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 310
  • Posts: 8602
November 13th, 2011 at 3:28:18 AM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

the true axiom concering the logical need for a first cause. The first cause, which does not have to be a person or entity, is a metaphysical necessity. Everything that begins to exist has a cause... This logic is not really in question



I recognized this as something that had been worked out in some discipline without quite understanding it myself. So I looked it up and offer it here as a link; this is wikipedia but looks reliable. I'll have to ponder this, there is something about it that I don't quite grasp.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder

  • Jump to: