God created the universe, what created God?

[HedonismBot]

He just, always existed? What is the first thing he can remember? Does time have no meaning for him? I don't see how there can be a first act of god, does christianity answer these questions? Thanks for the info.

[Metric]

Time is already a foggy concept not fully understood in generally covariant theories (like the ones that presumably describe our universe) -- on the fundamental mechanical level, there doesn't seem to be any explicit "time variable" -- somehow it is an emergent concept. To go further and start applying time concepts to God appears to me to be really, really pushing the bounds of the whole concept of time -- one would presumably need a mechanical model of God (for starters) and that doesn't seem very forthcoming, since "interaction with the divine" seems rather unpredictable at best.

[amirite]

In before 50 people reference Flatland.

[oneeye13]

he dislikes gambling, whoring, drug dealing... is god the ultimate hater?

[Sharkey]

The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
He just, always existed? What is the first thing he can remember? Does time have no meaning for him? I don't see how there can be a first act of god, does christianity answer these questions? Thanks for the info.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus said "I am alpha and omega". The beginning and the end- perhaps time is a concept that is only useful for us humans.

[Prodigy54321]

There doesn't seem to be any possible way that there is any type of "beginning" (whether considering a god or not), until we realize that there may be not "before" and no "after" or any real way to evaluate TIME...at least not yet

[Toe-Knee]

[ QUOTE ]

Jesus said "I am alpha and omega". The beginning and the end- perhaps time is a concept that is only useful for us humans.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah it has really become apparant to me that time is very much an illusion for us. It sounds impossible, but there really would be no beggining of time, or for that matter time at all. Also I really don't agree with personifying God. Are we really that (insert big word) that we can only visualize God as an old guy with a white beard and a white robe. I think God is much more of a force than a "he".

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Time is already a foggy concept not fully understood in generally covariant theories (like the ones that presumably describe our universe) -- on the fundamental mechanical level, there doesn't seem to be any explicit "time variable" -- somehow it is an emergent concept. To go further and start applying time concepts to God appears to me to be really, really pushing the bounds of the whole concept of time -- one would presumably need a mechanical model of God (for starters) and that doesn't seem very forthcoming, since "interaction with the divine" seems rather unpredictable at best.

[/ QUOTE ]
Metric, do you by any chance have an understanding of the theory (from Hawkings I think) that there is no "zero-point" of time? That in the early universe, when it was really small, quantum effects "smear out" the earliest time periods?

As you can tell, I have nothing but a half-remembered reading of a popular science article - they drew lots of pretty pictures of space-time cones with rounded tips if it helps... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
There doesn't seem to be any possible way that there is any type of "beginning" (whether considering a god or not), until we realize that there may be not "before" and no "after" or any real way to evaluate TIME...at least not yet

[/ QUOTE ]

The priests of science like to tell a fairytale about spacetime (an absurd conflation) and the currently observable “laws” of physics making their appearance without antecedent, like turning on a light.

[HigherAce]

If god did in fact create the universe it seems he used a lot of logic in doing so. Mathematics, laws of physics and such. Where is the logic in letting a planet full of people believe in you and then leave no proof that you ever existed except for the bible(a book written 2000 or so years ago by a HUMAN). Seriously who the hell knows what happened 2000 years ago....NO ONE. And do you know how ignorant the people of 2000 years ago were? Seriously they thought the planet was still flat 500 years ago. There's no logic in religious views and yet the universe is built on it. hmmm

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion calls the first cause "God" and makes a claim to know quite a bit about this first cause based on an ancient book. Science at least admits that reconciling this first cause is difficult and may be beyond human capacity or anything within the universe to understand, and makes no claims to fully understand or label this cause. Which approach seems more rational?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion calls the first cause "God" and makes a claim to know quite a bit about this first cause based on an ancient book. Science at least admits that reconciling this first cause is difficult and may be beyond human capacity or anything within the universe to understand, and makes no claims to fully understand or label this cause. Which approach seems more rational?

[/ QUOTE ]

Insufficient data. It depends on the religion, the science, the methods used, the criteria for assessing the results, definitions of terms, etc.

[Wes Mantooth]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously who the hell knows what happened 2000 years ago....NO ONE. And do you know how ignorant the people of 2000 years ago were? Seriously they thought the planet was still flat 500 years ago. There's no logic in religious views and yet the universe is built on it. hmmm

[/ QUOTE ]

your right, i always thought history is completely useless and should not be applied to anything today.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously who the hell knows what happened 2000 years ago....NO ONE. And do you know how ignorant the people of 2000 years ago were? Seriously they thought the planet was still flat 500 years ago. There's no logic in religious views and yet the universe is built on it. hmmm

[/ QUOTE ]

your right, i always thought history is completely useless.

[/ QUOTE ]
History is there so you can recognise the same mistake when you make it.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this goes to the crux of the difference between science and religion. Science makes no claim to being able to answer these sorts of questions because it voluntarily limits its enquiries. The upside is - the conclusions it does come to are more easily checked and confirmed than those of religion.

Religion does claim to answer these questions - but loses the ability to be tested and confirmed as thoroughly as science.

IMO it also means its more rational to believe scientific claims than religious ones where you have no knowledge of the problem yourself.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this goes to the crux of the difference between science and religion. Science makes no claim to being able to answer these sorts of questions because it voluntarily limits its enquiries. The upside is - the conclusions it does come to are more easily checked and confirmed than those of religion.

Religion does claim to answer these questions - but loses the ability to be tested and confirmed as thoroughly as science.

IMO it also means its more rational to believe scientific claims than religious ones where you have no knowledge of the problem yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
except religon doesn't answer the first cause question.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this goes to the crux of the difference between science and religion. Science makes no claim to being able to answer these sorts of questions because it voluntarily limits its enquiries. The upside is - the conclusions it does come to are more easily checked and confirmed than those of religion.

Religion does claim to answer these questions - but loses the ability to be tested and confirmed as thoroughly as science.

IMO it also means its more rational to believe scientific claims than religious ones where you have no knowledge of the problem yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
except religon doesn't answer the first cause question.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
It claims to

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this goes to the crux of the difference between science and religion. Science makes no claim to being able to answer these sorts of questions because it voluntarily limits its enquiries. The upside is - the conclusions it does come to are more easily checked and confirmed than those of religion.

Religion does claim to answer these questions - but loses the ability to be tested and confirmed as thoroughly as science.

IMO it also means its more rational to believe scientific claims than religious ones where you have no knowledge of the problem yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
except religon doesn't answer the first cause question.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
It claims to

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it claims to, but it doesn't.

chez

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There doesn't seem to be any possible way that there is any type of "beginning" (whether considering a god or not), until we realize that there may be not "before" and no "after" or any real way to evaluate TIME...at least not yet

[/ QUOTE ]

The priests of science like to tell a fairytale about spacetime (an absurd conflation) and the currently observable “laws” of physics making their appearance without antecedent, like turning on a light.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what the hell that means...


Too many big words...does not compute!!!!!

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this goes to the crux of the difference between science and religion. Science makes no claim to being able to answer these sorts of questions because it voluntarily limits its enquiries. The upside is - the conclusions it does come to are more easily checked and confirmed than those of religion.

Religion does claim to answer these questions - but loses the ability to be tested and confirmed as thoroughly as science.

IMO it also means its more rational to believe scientific claims than religious ones where you have no knowledge of the problem yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science does have its utility, obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion calls the first cause "God" and makes a claim to know quite a bit about this first cause based on an ancient book. Science at least admits that reconciling this first cause is difficult and may be beyond human capacity or anything within the universe to understand, and makes no claims to fully understand or label this cause. Which approach seems more rational?

[/ QUOTE ]

Insufficient data. It depends on the religion, the science, the methods used, the criteria for assessing the results, definitions of terms, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean--I thought you were the one who painted the "religion of science" with one broad brush?

[Lestat]

If I just jumped onto this forum in the last couple of days, I'd mistake you for an atheist. You really are one logical thinking theist! I repspect that.

Actually, to a layman like me, some of the theories now being put forth by science (such as string theory and M-theory), sound just as ludricrous as biblical accounts. Of course, I do trust physicists more.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Science does have its utility, obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I think this should read:
Religion does have its utility, not obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion calls the first cause "God" and makes a claim to know quite a bit about this first cause based on an ancient book. Science at least admits that reconciling this first cause is difficult and may be beyond human capacity or anything within the universe to understand, and makes no claims to fully understand or label this cause. Which approach seems more rational?

[/ QUOTE ]

Insufficient data. It depends on the religion, the science, the methods used, the criteria for assessing the results, definitions of terms, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean--I thought you were the one who painted the "religion of science" with one broad brush?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, really? That’s not very scientific of you.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science does have its utility, obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I think this should read:
Religion does have its utility, not obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll agree to this extent: religion has been used as a pretext for doing the wrong thing. The same goes for science.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this goes to the crux of the difference between science and religion. Science makes no claim to being able to answer these sorts of questions because it voluntarily limits its enquiries. The upside is - the conclusions it does come to are more easily checked and confirmed than those of religion.

Religion does claim to answer these questions - but loses the ability to be tested and confirmed as thoroughly as science.

IMO it also means its more rational to believe scientific claims than religious ones where you have no knowledge of the problem yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
except religon doesn't answer the first cause question.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
It claims to

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it claims to, but it doesn't.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
My only point was that science excludes itself from discussing certain questions but these strict contraints deliver a payoff in its claims being easier to believe. It seems to me that people's antagonism often derives from misunderstanding this.

Religion gives all kinds of answers (I think God causes everything and is self-causing is an answer, if an unsatisfying one) to questions that science cant. Unfortunately, religion of itself doesnt give you a very good reason to believe in its claims.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this goes to the crux of the difference between science and religion. Science makes no claim to being able to answer these sorts of questions because it voluntarily limits its enquiries. The upside is - the conclusions it does come to are more easily checked and confirmed than those of religion.

Religion does claim to answer these questions - but loses the ability to be tested and confirmed as thoroughly as science.

IMO it also means its more rational to believe scientific claims than religious ones where you have no knowledge of the problem yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
except religon doesn't answer the first cause question.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
It claims to

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it claims to, but it doesn't.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
My only point was that science excludes itself from discussing certain questions but these strict contraints deliver a payoff in its claims being easier to believe. It seems to me that people's antagonism often derives from misunderstanding this.

Religion gives all kinds of answers (I think God causes everything and is self-causing is an answer, if an unsatisfying one) to questions that science cant. Unfortunately, religion of itself doesnt give you a very good reason to believe in its claims.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay but its not science or religon. The first cause argument is logical problem. Its a difficult problem and the lack of a resolution is often used by theists to justify belief in god, but god doesn't resolve the logical problem either so its an incorrect justification.

chez

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The concept of the first cause is always a tough one.

In fact, as far as I’ve read, the "scientific" religion that predominates today doesn’t even address the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this goes to the crux of the difference between science and religion. Science makes no claim to being able to answer these sorts of questions because it voluntarily limits its enquiries. The upside is - the conclusions it does come to are more easily checked and confirmed than those of religion.

Religion does claim to answer these questions - but loses the ability to be tested and confirmed as thoroughly as science.

IMO it also means its more rational to believe scientific claims than religious ones where you have no knowledge of the problem yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
except religon doesn't answer the first cause question.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
It claims to

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it claims to, but it doesn't.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
My only point was that science excludes itself from discussing certain questions but these strict contraints deliver a payoff in its claims being easier to believe. It seems to me that people's antagonism often derives from misunderstanding this.

Religion gives all kinds of answers (I think God causes everything and is self-causing is an answer, if an unsatisfying one) to questions that science cant. Unfortunately, religion of itself doesnt give you a very good reason to believe in its claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

A very good explanation, bunny, which should satisfy theists and atheists alike.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay but its not science or religon. The first cause argument is logical problem. Its a difficult problem and the lack of a resolution is often used by theists to justify belief in god, but god doesn't resolve the logical problem either so its an incorrect justification.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand this - can you give me an explanation of what the logical problem is?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay but its not science or religon. The first cause argument is logical problem. Its a difficult problem and the lack of a resolution is often used by theists to justify belief in god, but god doesn't resolve the logical problem either so its an incorrect justification.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand this - can you give me an explanation of what the logical problem is?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore there must be a first cause.

Giving god as the answer fails because of 1). Deny 1) and there is no first cause problem requiring an answer.

chez

[AJFenix]

"Do good things and you'll see eternal paradise! Enough questions kid, put your money in the basket."

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay but its not science or religon. The first cause argument is logical problem. Its a difficult problem and the lack of a resolution is often used by theists to justify belief in god, but god doesn't resolve the logical problem either so its an incorrect justification.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand this - can you give me an explanation of what the logical problem is?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore there must be a first cause.

Giving god as the answer fails because of 1). Deny 1) and there is no first cause problem requiring an answer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont theists deny 2)?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that “everything is caused by another thing” and “a causal chain cannot be of infinite length” are mutually exclusive.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay but its not science or religon. The first cause argument is logical problem. Its a difficult problem and the lack of a resolution is often used by theists to justify belief in god, but god doesn't resolve the logical problem either so its an incorrect justification.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand this - can you give me an explanation of what the logical problem is?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore there must be a first cause.

Giving god as the answer fails because of 1). Deny 1) and there is no first cause problem requiring an answer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont theists deny 2)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Same problem, if a causal loop is possible then there is no first cause problem.

Its a very old problem with a long pedigree and its fairly clear that there is no resolution to it. We simply have no idea how it got going, we don't even understand what it means to talk about it getting going.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that “everything is caused by another thing” and “a causal chain cannot be of infinite length” are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So which do you want to reject:

if we deny 3) then the things can exist without being caused
if we deny 4) then there need be no first cause

In either case there is no first cause problem. So nothing for science or religon to deal with.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay but its not science or religon. The first cause argument is logical problem. Its a difficult problem and the lack of a resolution is often used by theists to justify belief in god, but god doesn't resolve the logical problem either so its an incorrect justification.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand this - can you give me an explanation of what the logical problem is?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore there must be a first cause.

Giving god as the answer fails because of 1). Deny 1) and there is no first cause problem requiring an answer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont theists deny 2)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Same problem, if a causal loop is possible then there is no first cause problem.

Its a very old problem with a long pedigree and its fairly clear that there is no resolution to it. We simply have no idea how it got going, we don't even understand what it means to talk about it getting going.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I clearly dont get it. It seems to me a theist has nothing to explain - if you grant God the ability to cause himself then there is indeed no first cause problem as you put it.

[bunny]

Or are you saying theists dont answer the question - they avoid it?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that “everything is caused by another thing” and “a causal chain cannot be of infinite length” are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So which do you want to reject:

if we deny 3) then the things can exist without being caused
if we deny 4) then there need be no first cause

In either case there is no first cause problem. So nothing for science or religon to deal with.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleting “everything is caused by another thing” takes care of the problematic nature of a first cause.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
I clearly dont get it. It seems to me a theist has nothing to explain - if you grant God the ability to cause himself then there is indeed no first cause problem as you put it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you grant God the ability to cause himself, then you can't also say that the universe needs a First Cause (why couldn't some energy have caused itself as well, preceding the Big Bang). This is why the First Cause theist argument falls flat--it tries to somehow prove God exists but uses the same rationale (he either was always there or "self-caused") that was used to refute why the universe needed to be created in the first place (because it couldn't just "always be there" or caused itself). Thus, you are left with nothing more than hand-waving.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I clearly dont get it. It seems to me a theist has nothing to explain - if you grant God the ability to cause himself then there is indeed no first cause problem as you put it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you grant God the ability to cause himself, then you can't also say that the universe needs a First Cause (why couldn't some energy have caused itself as well, preceding the Big Bang). This is why the First Cause theist argument falls flat--it tries to somehow prove God exists but uses the same rationale (he either was always there or "self-caused") that was used to refute why the universe needed to be created in the first place (because it couldn't just "always be there" or caused itself). Thus, you are left with nothing more than hand-waving.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt mean to be claiming a proof for God. I more meant I theist doesnt have a "problem" with the possibility of a first cause. I dont really think science has a problem either - it seems to me to be beyond the realm of scientific enquiry (although I grant the possibility that it may uncover a self-causing process as you allude to).

Like I say - I just dont get it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you grant God the ability to cause himself...

[/ QUOTE ]

“Self-causation” is a nonsense term. The correct phraseology is “uncaused cause”.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science does have its utility, obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I think this should read:
Religion does have its utility, not obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll agree to this extent: religion has been used as a pretext for doing the wrong thing. The same goes for science.

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes beyond using either for the doing the wrong thing. The problem is when religion strays in the domain of science, ie ID followers etc... Science has never strayed in the religious domain. It has its hands full investigating the natural domain, let alone worry about a fictitious, or not if you are wont to believe, supernatural.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I clearly dont get it. It seems to me a theist has nothing to explain - if you grant God the ability to cause himself then there is indeed no first cause problem as you put it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you grant God the ability to cause himself, then you can't also say that the universe needs a First Cause (why couldn't some energy have caused itself as well, preceding the Big Bang). This is why the First Cause theist argument falls flat--it tries to somehow prove God exists but uses the same rationale (he either was always there or "self-caused") that was used to refute why the universe needed to be created in the first place (because it couldn't just "always be there" or caused itself). Thus, you are left with nothing more than hand-waving.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt mean to be claiming a proof for God. I more meant I theist doesnt have a "problem" with the possibility of a first cause. I dont really think science has a problem either - it seems to me to be beyond the realm of scientific enquiry (although I grant the possibility that it may uncover a self-causing process as you allude to).

Like I say - I just dont get it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't saying that YOU were trying to prove God, but the First Cause argument is often used by theists to justify that a God must exist (i.e., the universe requires a creator--but the creator of the universe does not).

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if you grant God the ability to cause himself...

[/ QUOTE ]

“Self-causation” is a nonsense term. The correct phraseology is “uncaused cause”.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever floats your boat, they sound equally nonsensical to me.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science does have its utility, obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I think this should read:
Religion does have its utility, not obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll agree to this extent: religion has been used as a pretext for doing the wrong thing. The same goes for science.

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes beyond using either for the doing the wrong thing. The problem is when religion strays in the domain of science, ie ID followers etc... Science has never strayed in the religious domain. It has its hands full investigating the natural domain, let alone worry about a fictitious, or not if you are wont to believe, supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scientific method itself is a fictitious totem.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that “everything is caused by another thing” and “a causal chain cannot be of infinite length” are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So which do you want to reject:

if we deny 3) then the things can exist without being caused
if we deny 4) then there need be no first cause

In either case there is no first cause problem. So nothing for science or religon to deal with.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleting “everything is caused by another thing” takes care of the problematic nature of a first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't (3) just a result of (1)+(2)?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
If I just jumped onto this forum in the last couple of days, I'd mistake you for an atheist. You really are one logical thinking theist! I repspect that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks - though I am of course trying to confine myself to logical argument only when posting here. In reality I'm a froth-at-the-mouth Jesus freak. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, to a layman like me, some of the theories now being put forth by science (such as string theory and M-theory), sound just as ludricrous as biblical accounts. Of course, I do trust physicists more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Outlandish scientific theories (truly scientific anyway) at least give you a way of measuring them. Although it's a way off, I believe string theory is getting close to making actual physical predictions within the range of energies we can realistically test. What offends me more personally are pseudo-scientific theories like astrology, homeopathy, etc (I like to include SETI too). Nothing against them as such - just their claim to be scientific that bugs me.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that “everything is caused by another thing” and “a causal chain cannot be of infinite length” are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So which do you want to reject:

if we deny 3) then the things can exist without being caused
if we deny 4) then there need be no first cause

In either case there is no first cause problem. So nothing for science or religon to deal with.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleting “everything is caused by another thing” takes care of the problematic nature of a first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't (3) just a result of (1)+(2)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. The contest is between the other two.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying that YOU were trying to prove God, but the First Cause argument is often used by theists to justify that a God must exist (i.e., the universe requires a creator--but the creator of the universe does not).

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah ok - I get that (finally!). I agree - it's a silly argument. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science does have its utility, obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I think this should read:
Religion does have its utility, not obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll agree to this extent: religion has been used as a pretext for doing the wrong thing. The same goes for science.

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes beyond using either for the doing the wrong thing. The problem is when religion strays in the domain of science, ie ID followers etc... Science has never strayed in the religious domain. It has its hands full investigating the natural domain, let alone worry about a fictitious, or not if you are wont to believe, supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scientific method itself is a fictitious totem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please recommend an alternative method.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that “everything is caused by another thing” and “a causal chain cannot be of infinite length” are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So which do you want to reject:

if we deny 3) then the things can exist without being caused
if we deny 4) then there need be no first cause

In either case there is no first cause problem. So nothing for science or religon to deal with.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleting “everything is caused by another thing” takes care of the problematic nature of a first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't (3) just a result of (1)+(2)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. The contest is between the other two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if (3) is a result of (1) and (2), then removing (3) doesn't remove the first cause issue because (1) and (2) are there, right?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is when religion strays in the domain of science, ie ID followers etc... Science has never strayed in the religious domain...

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that both should remain in their own areas. I dont agree that science has never strayed in the religious domain though - there are people who claim that science will ultimately answer questions that in reality it will never be able to.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science does have its utility, obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I think this should read:
Religion does have its utility, not obviously. What often happens though is its practitioners extend its conclusions beyond the proper scope to the point of loosing self-consistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll agree to this extent: religion has been used as a pretext for doing the wrong thing. The same goes for science.

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes beyond using either for the doing the wrong thing. The problem is when religion strays in the domain of science, ie ID followers etc... Science has never strayed in the religious domain. It has its hands full investigating the natural domain, let alone worry about a fictitious, or not if you are wont to believe, supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scientific method itself is a fictitious totem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please recommend an alternative method.

[/ QUOTE ]

When used properly, science is tough to beat.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that “everything is caused by another thing” and “a causal chain cannot be of infinite length” are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So which do you want to reject:

if we deny 3) then the things can exist without being caused
if we deny 4) then there need be no first cause

In either case there is no first cause problem. So nothing for science or religon to deal with.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleting “everything is caused by another thing” takes care of the problematic nature of a first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't (3) just a result of (1)+(2)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. The contest is between the other two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if (3) is a result of (1) and (2), then removing (3) doesn't remove the first cause issue because (1) and (2) are there, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) is unnecessary because it’s merely a corollary of (3).

(2) is also unnecessary because not-(2) makes no logical sense.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that “everything is caused by another thing” and “a causal chain cannot be of infinite length” are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So which do you want to reject:

if we deny 3) then the things can exist without being caused
if we deny 4) then there need be no first cause

In either case there is no first cause problem. So nothing for science or religon to deal with.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleting “everything is caused by another thing” takes care of the problematic nature of a first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't (3) just a result of (1)+(2)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. The contest is between the other two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if (3) is a result of (1) and (2), then removing (3) doesn't remove the first cause issue because (1) and (2) are there, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) is unnecessary because it’s merely a corollary of (3).

(2) is also unnecessary because not-(2) makes no logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that these were listed as the basis of the first cause argument, right? So, if you remove (1) and (3), then you are removing the need for anything to have a cause, and thus don't have a first cause argument anymore.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that “everything is caused by another thing” and “a causal chain cannot be of infinite length” are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
So which do you want to reject:

if we deny 3) then the things can exist without being caused
if we deny 4) then there need be no first cause

In either case there is no first cause problem. So nothing for science or religon to deal with.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleting “everything is caused by another thing” takes care of the problematic nature of a first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't (3) just a result of (1)+(2)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. The contest is between the other two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if (3) is a result of (1) and (2), then removing (3) doesn't remove the first cause issue because (1) and (2) are there, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) is unnecessary because it’s merely a corollary of (3).

(2) is also unnecessary because not-(2) makes no logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that these were listed as the basis of the first cause argument, right? So, if you remove (1) and (3), then you are removing the need for anything to have a cause, and thus don't have a first cause argument anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Removing (1) and (3) means there could be an uncaused cause.

The further possibility of nothing being caused is also allowed by it, all else aside, but who believes that?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The scientific method itself is a fictitious totem.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL /images/graemlins/laugh.gif You really are a luddite!

[silkyslim]

chuck norris.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I really don't agree with personifying God. Are we really that (insert big word) that we can only visualize God as an old guy with a white beard and a white robe. I think God is much more of a force than a "he".

[/ QUOTE ]

The bible doesn't describe God as 'an old guy with a white beard and a white robe.' It says God is Spirit. I don't think he has fingers and toes but it's possible. The 'he' and 'father' are names to describe his character to us humans.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he has fingers and toes but it's possible

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL.. if you can make statements like that then it is abolutely appropriate for me to say that he is more likely to have flippers or even hoofs. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Time is already a foggy concept not fully understood in generally covariant theories (like the ones that presumably describe our universe) -- on the fundamental mechanical level, there doesn't seem to be any explicit "time variable" -- somehow it is an emergent concept. To go further and start applying time concepts to God appears to me to be really, really pushing the bounds of the whole concept of time -- one would presumably need a mechanical model of God (for starters) and that doesn't seem very forthcoming, since "interaction with the divine" seems rather unpredictable at best.

[/ QUOTE ]
Metric, do you by any chance have an understanding of the theory (from Hawkings I think) that there is no "zero-point" of time? That in the early universe, when it was really small, quantum effects "smear out" the earliest time periods?

As you can tell, I have nothing but a half-remembered reading of a popular science article - they drew lots of pretty pictures of space-time cones with rounded tips if it helps... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you refer to the so-called "no boundary proposal" for quantum cosmology. I'm not very familiar with the major objections to it, but basically it is a way of doing quantum mechanics with the universe in a way that "leaves out" the singularities that inevitably show up in classical solutions. Since one of these singularities occurs at the "big bang," there is a sense in which this proposal smoothes things out at the earliest moments of time -- but at the cost of introducing "imaginary time" (whose interpretation is not, to my knowledge, very well understood -- you can't just identify it with the hands of a clock, for example). So it's one of these mathematical games that would appear to have some good implications for the universe, but is a challenge for people to make consistent. I'm not sure how big this is these days -- it was introduced by Hawking in the early 80's, and now there are other models for cosmology (motivated by string theory or loop quantum gravity) that seem to be all the rage.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying that YOU were trying to prove God, but the First Cause argument is often used by theists to justify that a God must exist (i.e., the universe requires a creator--but the creator of the universe does not).

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah ok - I get that (finally!). I agree - it's a silly argument. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
but very popular amongst theists many of whom cant see why its silly.

Back to the original point which is we don't know which of the premises is wrong: Does everything have a cause?, can there be a causal loop or inifinite chain? etc.

Religon doesn't answer this anymore than science does, the answer may be to abandon causation which would be a triumph for hi-falotin philosophy. [science is wandering doen the path of non-causation but can never logically arrive there].

fun thread mainly on first cause (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=scimathphil&Number=3490695 &Forum=,,,,,f33,,,,,&Words=russell%20-re%3A&Searchpage=5&Limit=25&Main=3490695&Search=tr ue&where=bodysub&Name=&daterange=1&newerval=4&newe rtype=m&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post3490695 )

chez

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the logic in letting a planet full of people believe in you and then leave no proof that you ever existed except for the bible(a book written 2000 or so years ago by a HUMAN). Seriously who the hell knows what happened 2000 years ago....NO ONE. And do you know how ignorant the people of 2000 years ago were? Seriously they thought the planet was still flat 500 years ago. There's no logic in religious views and yet the universe is built on it. hmmm

[/ QUOTE ]

It is this kind of self proclaimed Bible expertise from people who have obviously not even read the Bible that is causing me to become bored with this forum. Ignorance begets ignorance here in SMP. I only read the first 1 ½ pages of this thread, but so far noone has challenged the above quote. In fact, many just jumped on the bandwagon. The Bible says the earth is round. Are you guys just as educated in scientific studies as you are Bible studies? What inspires a person to act like an expert of something he has not studied?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where is the logic in letting a planet full of people believe in you and then leave no proof that you ever existed except for the bible(a book written 2000 or so years ago by a HUMAN). Seriously who the hell knows what happened 2000 years ago....NO ONE. And do you know how ignorant the people of 2000 years ago were? Seriously they thought the planet was still flat 500 years ago. There's no logic in religious views and yet the universe is built on it. hmmm

[/ QUOTE ]

It is this kind of self proclaimed Bible expertise from people who have obviously not even read the Bible that is causing me to become bored with this forum. Ignorance begets ignorance here in SMP. I only read the first 1 ½ pages of this thread, but so far noone has challenged the above quote. In fact, many just jumped on the bandwagon. The Bible says the earth is round. Are you guys just as educated in scientific studies as you are Bible studies? What inspires a person to act like an expert of something he has not studied?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think some ignored it because the flat earth claim has been debunked so many times.

but he never claimed that the bible said the earth was round did he? The only claim about the bible is that it was written by a human and no amount of bible study can show that not to be the case (even if its not the case).

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Thanks - though I am of course trying to confine myself to logical argument only when posting here. In reality I'm a froth-at-the-mouth Jesus freak.
</font>

I find that very interesting. If I can just as you a very straight forward question:

What is it that causes you to step outside of your logic and arrive at an invisible being in the sky? I don't mean that in a snide way... Just that I'm sure you realize it is very illogical to believe that and more illogical still, to believe in any one specific god or religion . If you weren't logical in the first place, it would make sense. But given that you ARE logical, I don't understand. I guess what I'm trying to find out is, what makes a logical Jesus freak tick?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Thanks - though I am of course trying to confine myself to logical argument only when posting here. In reality I'm a froth-at-the-mouth Jesus freak.
</font>

I find that very interesting. If I can just as you a very straight forward question:

What is it that causes you to step outside of your logic and arrive at an invisible being in the sky? I don't mean that in a snide way... Just that I'm sure you realize it is very illogical to believe that and more illogical still, to believe in any one specific god or religion . If you weren't logical in the first place, it would make sense. But given that you ARE logical, I don't understand. I guess what I'm trying to find out is, what makes a logical Jesus freak tick?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see a response to this as well, though I don't think there's anything inherently illogical about being a christian.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Thanks - though I am of course trying to confine myself to logical argument only when posting here. In reality I'm a froth-at-the-mouth Jesus freak.
</font>

I find that very interesting. If I can just as you a very straight forward question:

What is it that causes you to step outside of your logic and arrive at an invisible being in the sky? I don't mean that in a snide way... Just that I'm sure you realize it is very illogical to believe that and more illogical still, to believe in any one specific god or religion . If you weren't logical in the first place, it would make sense. But given that you ARE logical, I don't understand. I guess what I'm trying to find out is, what makes a logical Jesus freak tick?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see a response to this as well, though I don't think there's anything inherently illogical about being a christian.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not "inherent", but illogical given other logical thinkings. If you find someone who is especially good in one area of math, you expect him to be competent in other areas as well.

And I'm not sure I agree. Christianity does seem illogical to me. I understand it from a faith standpoint, but not from a logical one. If you can understand that 364+735=1099, you should have no difficulty with 2+2=4. I don't mean to be condenscending. Just that, if you step outside of faith and think about how the concept of gods started in the first place, the incredulousness of biblical accounts and an invisible creator in the sky and so forth, Chritianity becomes very illogical when placed in the context of everything else.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Thanks - though I am of course trying to confine myself to logical argument only when posting here. In reality I'm a froth-at-the-mouth Jesus freak.
</font>

I find that very interesting. If I can just as you a very straight forward question:

What is it that causes you to step outside of your logic and arrive at an invisible being in the sky? I don't mean that in a snide way... Just that I'm sure you realize it is very illogical to believe that and more illogical still, to believe in any one specific god or religion . If you weren't logical in the first place, it would make sense. But given that you ARE logical, I don't understand. I guess what I'm trying to find out is, what makes a logical Jesus freak tick?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see a response to this as well, though I don't think there's anything inherently illogical about being a christian.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not "inherent", but illogical given other logical thinkings. If you find someone who is especially good in one area of math, you expect him to be competent in other areas as well.

And I'm not sure I agree. Christianity does seem illogical to me. I understand it from a faith standpoint, but not from a logical one. If you can understand that 364+735=1099, you should have no difficulty with 2+2=4. I don't mean to be condenscending. Just that, if you step outside of faith and think about how the concept of gods started in the first place, the incredulousness of biblical accounts and an invisible creator in the sky and so forth, Chritianity becomes very illogical when places in the context of everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely credulous but there's nothing illogical about being credulous, or maybe there is but I've never seen a logical demonstration that its illogical to be credulous.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
What is it that causes you to step outside of your logic and arrive at an invisible being in the sky?

[/ QUOTE ]

Logically precise inference from observation, i.e. science, is bound by the extent and reliability of direct experience.

Belief and speculation about an “invisible being in the sky” (a mischaracterization) are no more out of order in that regard than those about a “ghost in the machine” (consciousness).

[CORed]

A related question: What did God do before he created the universe? The best answer I've heard, which I have seen attributed to several people, so I'm not sure who actually said it is, "He created Hell for people who ask questions like that."

[billygrippo]

http://www.randi.org/images/commentary/sep2005/0915fsm.jpg

intelligent spaghetti.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is it that causes you to step outside of your logic and arrive at an invisible being in the sky?

[/ QUOTE ]

Logically precise inference from observation, i.e. science, is bound by the extent and reliability of direct experience.

Belief and speculation about an “invisible being in the sky” (a mischaracterization) are no more out of order in that regard than those about a “ghost in the machine” (consciousness).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you're not denying, "I think, therefore I am". This is the one thing Descartes found to be unquestionable even though literally everything else is up in the air.

What I'm saying is that it takes a *leap* to believe with any certainty in gods, numerology, etc. You can always say, "Well, these things can't be proved false", but that's no reason to conclude that such a belief is sound. Again, I have no problem with people who say they have faith. Just those who try and say such faith is built around logic.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you refer to the so-called "no boundary proposal" for quantum cosmology. I'm not very familiar with the major objections to it, but basically it is a way of doing quantum mechanics with the universe in a way that "leaves out" the singularities that inevitably show up in classical solutions. Since one of these singularities occurs at the "big bang," there is a sense in which this proposal smoothes things out at the earliest moments of time -- but at the cost of introducing "imaginary time" (whose interpretation is not, to my knowledge, very well understood -- you can't just identify it with the hands of a clock, for example). So it's one of these mathematical games that would appear to have some good implications for the universe, but is a challenge for people to make consistent. I'm not sure how big this is these days -- it was introduced by Hawking in the early 80's, and now there are other models for cosmology (motivated by string theory or loop quantum gravity) that seem to be all the rage.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I was talking about thanks. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

I have attempted an answer to this in a new post - Mock my theology here

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is it that causes you to step outside of your logic and arrive at an invisible being in the sky?

[/ QUOTE ]

Logically precise inference from observation, i.e. science, is bound by the extent and reliability of direct experience.

Belief and speculation about an “invisible being in the sky” (a mischaracterization) are no more out of order in that regard than those about a “ghost in the machine” (consciousness).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you're not denying, "I think, therefore I am". This is the one thing Descartes found to be unquestionable even though literally everything else is up in the air.

What I'm saying is that it takes a *leap* to believe with any certainty in gods, numerology, etc. You can always say, "Well, these things can't be proved false", but that's no reason to conclude that such a belief is sound. Again, I have no problem with people who say they have faith. Just those who try and say such faith is built around logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Descartes may have had faith in his proposition, but he never proved it.

I'm saying that logic is built around faith, not the other way around. Anyway, why shouldn’t faith be logical? It certainly can and should be.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
A related question: What did God do before he created the universe? The best answer I've heard, which I have seen attributed to several people, so I'm not sure who actually said it is, "He created Hell for people who ask questions like that."

[/ QUOTE ]
Augustine gave that response, I believe. Perhaps a more satisfying answer from modern physics, is that time began with space. That is there wasnt some eternity of time with God and nothing else, then bam - there's space. Rather space and time began at the same instant - there is a "time=0" and it doesnt mean anything to ask "What happened before that?"

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is it that causes you to step outside of your logic and arrive at an invisible being in the sky?

[/ QUOTE ]

Logically precise inference from observation, i.e. science, is bound by the extent and reliability of direct experience.

Belief and speculation about an “invisible being in the sky” (a mischaracterization) are no more out of order in that regard than those about a “ghost in the machine” (consciousness).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you're not denying, "I think, therefore I am". This is the one thing Descartes found to be unquestionable even though literally everything else is up in the air.

What I'm saying is that it takes a *leap* to believe with any certainty in gods, numerology, etc. You can always say, "Well, these things can't be proved false", but that's no reason to conclude that such a belief is sound. Again, I have no problem with people who say they have faith. Just those who try and say such faith is built around logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Descartes may have had faith in his proposition, but he never proved it.

I'm saying that logic is built around faith, not the other way around. Anyway, why shouldn’t faith be logical? It certainly can and should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of us misunderstands Descartes. My understanding is that after thorough contemplation, he finally concluded there was no way to prove the reality of anything. The only thing he COULD be 100% sure of was that he was capable of thought. Therefore, his thoughts must exist.

<font color="blue">I'm saying that logic is built around faith, not the other way around. Anyway, why shouldn’t faith be logical? It certainly can and should be. </font>

I couldn't find a way to refute this, because it makes too much sense. Yet, I know we are in disagreement so I looked up "faith" at dictionary.com. It turns out ther are several definitions. The one you state here which I agree with, and one that describes faith as <font color="red"> Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. </font> , which is what I'm talking about.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is it that causes you to step outside of your logic and arrive at an invisible being in the sky?

[/ QUOTE ]

Logically precise inference from observation, i.e. science, is bound by the extent and reliability of direct experience.

Belief and speculation about an “invisible being in the sky” (a mischaracterization) are no more out of order in that regard than those about a “ghost in the machine” (consciousness).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you're not denying, "I think, therefore I am". This is the one thing Descartes found to be unquestionable even though literally everything else is up in the air.

What I'm saying is that it takes a *leap* to believe with any certainty in gods, numerology, etc. You can always say, "Well, these things can't be proved false", but that's no reason to conclude that such a belief is sound. Again, I have no problem with people who say they have faith. Just those who try and say such faith is built around logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Descartes may have had faith in his proposition, but he never proved it.

I'm saying that logic is built around faith, not the other way around. Anyway, why shouldn’t faith be logical? It certainly can and should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of us misunderstands Descartes. My understanding is that after thorough contemplation, he finally concluded there was no way to prove the reality of anything. The only thing he COULD be 100% sure of was that he was capable of thought. Therefore, his thoughts must exist.

<font color="blue">I'm saying that logic is built around faith, not the other way around. Anyway, why shouldn’t faith be logical? It certainly can and should be. </font>

I couldn't find a way to refute this, because it makes too much sense. Yet, I know we are in disagreement so I looked up "faith" at dictionary.com. It turns out ther are several definitions. The one you state here which I agree with, and one that describes faith as <font color="red"> Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. </font> , which is what I'm talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to overwork this one issue, but being 100% sure of something does not mean it must exist.

I think we’re in the same ballpark with that definition of "faith".

[12AX7]

&lt;... this just in ...&gt;

Nobody knows.

[Peter666]

"And do you know how ignorant the people of 2000 years ago were? Seriously they thought the planet was still flat 500 years ago. There's no logic in religious views and yet the universe is built on it. hmmm"

This kind of stupidity annoys me. Plato wrote "The Republic" over 2000 years ago. What have you contributed to Western civilization lately except for using excessive bandwith while masturbating to internet porn?

[Hasidim]

he got bored...needed something to watch