Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do you believe in GOD?

Page 8 of 11 [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jun 2010, 10:23 am

Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
If you're going to make exceptions to your own "everything has a cause" rule, why not make this one?


01000110 01000001 01001001 01001100



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

14 Jun 2010, 10:25 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
If you're going to make exceptions to your own "everything has a cause" rule, why not make this one?


01000110 01000001 01001001 01001100


1) Picking out one short part of my long post and responding with one word does not help your argument
2) Where's the fail?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jun 2010, 10:26 am

Oh, and FYI, I'm not bothering with the rest of your lampooning.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

14 Jun 2010, 10:27 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Oh, and FYI, I'm not bothering with the rest of your lampooning.


Victory is mine! :king: :lol:



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jun 2010, 10:28 am

Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
If you're going to make exceptions to your own "everything has a cause" rule, why not make this one?


01000110 01000001 01001001 01001100


....
2) Where's the fail?


Either that you intentionally equivocated or that you lack some skills in reading comprehension.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

14 Jun 2010, 10:34 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
If you're going to make exceptions to your own "everything has a cause" rule, why not make this one?


01000110 01000001 01001001 01001100


....
2) Where's the fail?


Either that you intentionally equivocated or that you lack some skills in reading comprehension.


The only fail I see is me failing to spot what you're on about... :?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jun 2010, 10:35 am

Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
If you're going to make exceptions to your own "everything has a cause" rule, why not make this one?


01000110 01000001 01001001 01001100


....
2) Where's the fail?


Either that you intentionally equivocated or that you lack some skills in reading comprehension.


The only fail I see is me failing to spot what you're on about... :?


I think that would actually be a second one.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

14 Jun 2010, 10:40 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that would actually be a second one.


Mind explaining what you're actually on about? It seems that you've just reduced to personal insults because you've run out of arguments.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jun 2010, 10:55 am

Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that would actually be a second one.


Mind explaining what you're actually on about? It seems that you've just reduced to personal insults because you've run out of arguments.


Your fail is that you either think that the sentences "Everything that has a beginning has a cause." and "everything has a cause" are equivalent or that you have attempted to equivocate them. Also, the rest of your post wasn't even an argument, but instead caricaturization and lampooning.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

14 Jun 2010, 10:58 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that would actually be a second one.


Mind explaining what you're actually on about? It seems that you've just reduced to personal insults because you've run out of arguments.


Your fail is that you either think that the sentences "Everything that has a beginning has a cause." and "everything has a cause" are equivalent or that you have attempted to equivocate them. Also, the rest of your post wasn't even an argument, but instead caricaturization and lampooning.


So, you're implying that god has always existed? That makes even less sense than your original argument.

Lets face it, this is going nowhere. This shall be my last post in this thread.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jun 2010, 11:01 am

Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I think that would actually be a second one.


Mind explaining what you're actually on about? It seems that you've just reduced to personal insults because you've run out of arguments.


Your fail is that you either think that the sentences "Everything that has a beginning has a cause." and "everything has a cause" are equivalent or that you have attempted to equivocate them. Also, the rest of your post wasn't even an argument, but instead caricaturization and lampooning.


So, you're implying that god has always existed? That makes even less sense than your original argument.

Lets face it, this is going nowhere. This shall be my last post in this thread.


I'll hold you to that, and call it a third fail if you break your word.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Jun 2010, 11:28 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Fine.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe, the matter and energy, either had a beginning or it has existed infinitely. The universe could not have existed infinitely, since it would have undergone entropic heat death long since, so the universe must have had a beginning. Since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The universe, consisting of matter and energy, either must have created itself or must have been created by another agent. Matter and energy cannot create themselves, but only change forms, so matter and energy, the universe, must have been created by another agent.

Look, I've already pointed out to you that the cosmological argument has problems with its implicit assumptions about the nature of time.

If there is no time prior to the existence of the universe, then the universe has existed for all time. If something has existed for all time, there is no need for a cause, in fact, the very term "cause" might even be questionable when applied to such a thing. Given that this is a relevant possibility, your exclusion of it causes your proof to fail, and seems to make any god unnecessary.

As I also said, it is entirely possible, such as with a "block universe" that the universe, and everything in it, could timelessly exist (like God) and thus no god is necessary. Your only rebuttal to this previously is just to consider the possibility stupid, but there is nothing about the possibility that really is stupid. But given this possibility, there is no need for a god.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jun 2010, 11:32 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Fine.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe, the matter and energy, either had a beginning or it has existed infinitely. The universe could not have existed infinitely, since it would have undergone entropic heat death long since, so the universe must have had a beginning. Since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The universe, consisting of matter and energy, either must have created itself or must have been created by another agent. Matter and energy cannot create themselves, but only change forms, so matter and energy, the universe, must have been created by another agent.

Look, I've already pointed out to you that the cosmological argument has problems with its implicit assumptions about the nature of time.

If there is no time prior to the existence of the universe, then the universe has existed for all time. If something has existed for all time, there is no need for a cause, in fact, the very term "cause" might even be questionable when applied to such a thing. Given that this is a relevant possibility, your exclusion of it causes your proof to fail, and seems to make any god unnecessary.

As I also said, it is entirely possible, such as with a "block universe" that the universe, and everything in it, could timelessly exist (like God) and thus no god is necessary. Your only rebuttal to this previously is just to consider the possibility stupid, but there is nothing about the possibility that really is stupid. But given this possibility, there is no need for a god.


If you include the physical dimension of time, then yes the argument would need to become more complex and delve into relativistic physics. This is a simplified form. Existing for all physical time does not remove the inherent impossibility of the universe creating itself, but also adds to it the complexity of the additional dimensional parameters of the physical universe.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Jun 2010, 11:38 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If you include the physical dimension of time, then yes the argument would need to become more complex and delve into relativistic physics. This is a simplified form. Existing for all physical time does not remove the inherent impossibility of the universe creating itself, but also adds to it the complexity of the additional dimensional parameters of the physical universe.

Well, the issue is that the dimension of time, as we perceive, depends a lot on matter and energy in the first place.

The problem I see is that I don't think this argument works unless you assume a particular theory of time, the A-theory of time. The problem is that relativity pushes us towards the B-theory of time, which I don't think your argument works.

The universe doesn't have a time in which it didn't exist though, which is why it doesn't need to create itself. Creation has a moment before existence, and a moment after, often times where creating is occurring. Create is a verb. The problem is that if the universe has existed for all time, then no "creating" is necessary, nor would it make sense, because create is a verb, and verbs refer to actions, and actions require time in some sense.

As such, your idea fails. If you disagree, then why don't you actually take on my objection? I mean, your own argument of "inherent impossibility of the universe creating itself" outright ignores that I argue this to be completely unnecessary.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jun 2010, 12:09 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The universe doesn't have a time in which it didn't exist though, which is why it doesn't need to create itself.


Energy, matter, three spacial dimensions, and the dimension of time, then. The universe has existed for all the time of which the physical dimension of time occupies. Time, in my definition, is a sequencing of events in general rather than just a dimension through which we travel at the speed of light. Physical time has had a finite existence along with the rest of the universe, however an existence throughout all time that has elapsed does not take away the impossibility for the event of the universe's beginning to have caused itself.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Jun 2010, 12:33 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Energy, matter, three spacial dimensions, and the dimension of time, then. The universe has existed for all the time of which the physical dimension of time occupies. Time, in my definition, is a sequencing of events in general rather than just a dimension through which we travel at the speed of light. Physical time has had a finite existence along with the rest of the universe, however an existence throughout all time that has elapsed does not take away the impossibility for the event of the universe's beginning to have caused itself.

Ok, the problem is that there is no objective sequencing of events in reality, as simultaneity is relative. This means that your definition of time already does not exist in regards to the universe.

Even further, you still utterly miss my point. If the universe has always existed, then there is no need for a cause at that point. Nothing temporally precedes it, and as such, it cannot actually be "caused", nor would it really be "created". The first moment, is the first moment.

But, let's actually also use the "sequencing of events" to at least a minor extent, y'know to admit that there are causal pathways. Why is it impossible that there is infinite time, and that this infinite time has its roots in another universe, or some such? I mean, our rules for energy might only be specific to this universe, other universes might have the ability to spontaneously generate energy or some such, and if that is the case, then why can't there effectively be an infinite past?

As it stands, your argument outright fails, and you just apparently lack the mental flexibility to see beyond your nose.