Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Universe

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 10:18:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Must the Universe have an origin? Must it be caused? Why can't it be infinite?

Our minds, as human beings, only seem to have the capacity to comprehend the scientific doctrine of action-reaction, cause-effect, and an unbreakable adherence to duality. However, this doctrine is self-effacing.

If all things that occur must have reason for occurrence, then all events would be infinite, having no origin, and no end. You say that the Universe cannot just exist,....so you blame its existence on God. But then you refuse to justify why God can just exist without cause. What caused God? This logic, this necessessity for cause is an infinite loop that ultimately destroys itself. If EVERYTHING must be caused by something, then everything in whole is not caused by anything, for it has no origin, for it is an infinite loop of cause and effect!

We need to make ourselves comfortable with the notion that the Universe has always existed, because the other option is logically unsound. If the Universe has always existed, then we lose the last shred of cosmological support for intelligent design by a God.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 10:26:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The argument for God as the cause of the universe necessarily implies that he is an uncaused cause. He exists before time, space and matter, for he created it. There is nothing that existed before him to cause him for he is the cause of all origin.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 10:29:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:26:51 AM, Mestari wrote:
The argument for God as the cause of the universe necessarily implies that he is an uncaused cause. He exists before time, space and matter, for he created it. There is nothing that existed before him to cause him for he is the cause of all origin.

Not necessarily. My personal belief is the God was the cause for the creation of our universe, but I also believe there are other universes... an infinite amount of them, with no beginning.

God could create the universe, and also exist before space-time, by creating it externally. If space-time truly is related to the scope of our universe, and our universe is fixed in size, then there is the possibility for a different space-time to exist outside our universe.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 10:30:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:26:51 AM, Mestari wrote:
The argument for God as the cause of the universe necessarily implies that he is an uncaused cause. He exists before time, space and matter, for he created it. There is nothing that existed before him to cause him for he is the cause of all origin.

But how do we justify that the Universe was caused in the first place?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 10:51:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:30:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:26:51 AM, Mestari wrote:
The argument for God as the cause of the universe necessarily implies that he is an uncaused cause. He exists before time, space and matter, for he created it. There is nothing that existed before him to cause him for he is the cause of all origin.

But how do we justify that the Universe was caused in the first place?

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

At 2/18/2012 10:29:49 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

Not necessarily. My personal belief is the God was the cause for the creation of our universe, but I also believe there are other universes... an infinite amount of them, with no beginning.

God could create the universe, and also exist before space-time, by creating it externally. If space-time truly is related to the scope of our universe, and our universe is fixed in size, then there is the possibility for a different space-time to exist outside our universe.

Time cannot be infinite in the past direction. Actual infinites are impossible. I am quite sure that you are familiar with the Hilbert's Hotel and Grim Reaper paradoxes. If not I will gladly explain.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 10:59:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:51:16 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:30:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:26:51 AM, Mestari wrote:
The argument for God as the cause of the universe necessarily implies that he is an uncaused cause. He exists before time, space and matter, for he created it. There is nothing that existed before him to cause him for he is the cause of all origin.

But how do we justify that the Universe was caused in the first place?

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

Who said the Universe was caused?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 11:00:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:59:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:51:16 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:30:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:26:51 AM, Mestari wrote:
The argument for God as the cause of the universe necessarily implies that he is an uncaused cause. He exists before time, space and matter, for he created it. There is nothing that existed before him to cause him for he is the cause of all origin.

But how do we justify that the Universe was caused in the first place?

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

Who said the Universe began

fixed*
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 11:02:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:51:16 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:30:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:26:51 AM, Mestari wrote:
The argument for God as the cause of the universe necessarily implies that he is an uncaused cause. He exists before time, space and matter, for he created it. There is nothing that existed before him to cause him for he is the cause of all origin.

But how do we justify that the Universe was caused in the first place?

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

At 2/18/2012 10:29:49 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

Not necessarily. My personal belief is the God was the cause for the creation of our universe, but I also believe there are other universes... an infinite amount of them, with no beginning.

God could create the universe, and also exist before space-time, by creating it externally. If space-time truly is related to the scope of our universe, and our universe is fixed in size, then there is the possibility for a different space-time to exist outside our universe.

Time cannot be infinite in the past direction. Actual infinites are impossible. I am quite sure that you are familiar with the Hilbert's Hotel and Grim Reaper paradoxes. If not I will gladly explain.

You have no way to actually say that an infinite past is impossible. Scientifically, we know matter to be eternal, it cannot be destroyed(only converted into energy). So, it seems time must be infinite in the past, otherwise matter would have had to have been created at some point.

When dealing with concepts like 'eternity', we are not well-equipped to figure them out. Everything we observe seems to have a type of beginning. The sun didn't always exist(but the energy/matter that made it did). Babies are born(but they matter/energy existed in other forms before).

In all truth, man has never seen something be truly created, so what evidence is there that anything was ever truly created?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 11:08:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:51:16 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:30:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:26:51 AM, Mestari wrote:
The argument for God as the cause of the universe necessarily implies that he is an uncaused cause. He exists before time, space and matter, for he created it. There is nothing that existed before him to cause him for he is the cause of all origin.

But how do we justify that the Universe was caused in the first place?

Everything that we have observed, which is subject to the laws of the universe, has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

Fix'd. Now, how can we claim to know something outside of the universe when all (currently) accessible knowledge of something outside of the universe is non-existent?

At 2/18/2012 10:29:49 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

Not necessarily. My personal belief is the God was the cause for the creation of our universe, but I also believe there are other universes... an infinite amount of them, with no beginning.

God could create the universe, and also exist before space-time, by creating it externally. If space-time truly is related to the scope of our universe, and our universe is fixed in size, then there is the possibility for a different space-time to exist outside our universe.

Time cannot be infinite in the past direction.

Time is not an actuality. what's the smallest unit of time? 1x10^infinity. So time always stretches infinitely backwards.

Actual infinites are impossible.

They are, but you are going to express proof in a second which I shall address (probably W.L.Craig-sourced)

I am quite sure that you are familiar with the Hilbert's Hotel

Hilbert Hotel paradox is a proof that infinity does not work the same way as normal numbers, not that infinity cannot be real. 1 - Sets are an example of actual infinities (the set of possible heights, for example). But Hilbert Hotel is known as an "intuition pump", and this intuition pump is flawed.
http://www.paul-almond.com... explains it.

and Grim Reaper paradoxes.

This is an interesting paradox, but it doesn't help the case, because it attacks time travel, not infinite regresses.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 11:10:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:18:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
Must the Universe have an origin? Must it be caused? Why can't it be infinite?

Our minds, as human beings, only seem to have the capacity to comprehend the scientific doctrine of action-reaction, cause-effect, and an unbreakable adherence to duality. However, this doctrine is self-effacing.

If all things that occur must have reason for occurrence, then all events would be infinite, having no origin, and no end. You say that the Universe cannot just exist,....so you blame its existence on God. But then you refuse to justify why God can just exist without cause. What caused God? This logic, this necessessity for cause is an infinite loop that ultimately destroys itself. If EVERYTHING must be caused by something, then everything in whole is not caused by anything, for it has no origin, for it is an infinite loop of cause and effect!

We need to make ourselves comfortable with the notion that the Universe has always existed, because the other option is logically unsound. If the Universe has always existed, then we lose the last shred of cosmological support for intelligent design by a God.

Can you reform to the cosmos / "everything"? The Universe is almost certain to have a cause, it's the singularity now that is the question. It's like learning of the earth, then learning of the next biggest thing, other planets, then next biggest thing, the solar system, then next biggest thing, a galaxy, then the next biggest thing, the Universe, then the next biggest thing, the cosmos.

The Universe is the universe because of the event "big bang". Unless we disagree on this event, I feel we have a semantical difficulty.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 12:00:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems that the primary concern is whether or not a past infinite is possible, and support of the idea is structured strongest in Stephen_Hawkins' rebuttal. Thus, that is what I will be addressing.

At 2/18/2012 11:08:23 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:51:16 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:30:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:26:51 AM, Mestari wrote:
The argument for God as the cause of the universe necessarily implies that he is an uncaused cause. He exists before time, space and matter, for he created it. There is nothing that existed before him to cause him for he is the cause of all origin.

But how do we justify that the Universe was caused in the first place?

Everything that we have observed, which is subject to the laws of the universe, has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

Fix'd. Now, how can we claim to know something outside of the universe when all (currently) accessible knowledge of something outside of the universe is non-existent?

I guess at this point we had might as well more clearly outline my argument, which you have already identified to be William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument.

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of it's existence.
P4. That cause must be God.

Now, the OP was specifically speaking in reference to this universe, so my response was following the presented format. I have only been speaking to knowledge present within our current universe, although I am quite confident that it could extend beyond that.


At 2/18/2012 10:29:49 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

Not necessarily. My personal belief is the God was the cause for the creation of our universe, but I also believe there are other universes... an infinite amount of them, with no beginning.

God could create the universe, and also exist before space-time, by creating it externally. If space-time truly is related to the scope of our universe, and our universe is fixed in size, then there is the possibility for a different space-time to exist outside our universe.

Time cannot be infinite in the past direction.

Time is not an actuality. what's the smallest unit of time? 1x10^infinity. So time always stretches infinitely backwards.


I would say that infinite duration does not logically follow from infinite divisibility. A second will always be a second no matter how many miniscule units of time it consists of. Just because the time between 12:00pm and 12:01pm may be divided infinitely does not mean that an infinite amount of time has passed. That would be logically impossible as we know that a minute has passed, yet accepting that an infinite amount of time has passed would presume that it has been more than a minute. Yet that cannot hold as infinity is greater than one, and if more than one minute has passed then it would be 12:02pm at the very least.

Actual infinites are impossible.

They are, but you are going to express proof in a second which I shall address (probably W.L.Craig-sourced)

I am quite sure that you are familiar with the Hilbert's Hotel

Hilbert Hotel paradox is a proof that infinity does not work the same way as normal numbers, not that infinity cannot be real. 1 - Sets are an example of actual infinities (the set of possible heights, for example). But Hilbert Hotel is known as an "intuition pump", and this intuition pump is flawed.
http://www.paul-almond.com... explains it.


Hilbert's Hotel is not properly refuted by Paul Almond. The Hilbert's Hotel paradox holds that the hotel has an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests. As there are an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests, every room is occupied. However, upon arrival of a new guest a new room may be freed by moving every current guest to room n + 1 (i.e. the guest in room 1 moves to room 2, the guest in room 2 goes to room 3, etc.). Thus, room 1 will be vacant and the new guest may be accommodated. This is clearly paradoxical in that every room was occupied prior to the new guest's arrival. A hotel cannot be full and at the same time have vacancies for new guests.

Now, Paul Almond proposes an alternative conception of infinites. He displays the idea of an infinite number of cars (space ships) moving along an infinite road (space). However, what he fails to understand that the "intuition pump" is his argument itself. If anything at all he proves that infinites in motion relative to one another are not intuitively absurd. Mr. Almond creates a situation that avoids the thesis of the Hilbert's Hotel paradox. He does this by creating a background which is in itself infinite, and thus would be implausible by proof of Hibert's Hotel. You see, Hilbert's Hotel is a building in which an infinite amount of room exist in a fixed space. It seems improbable that you add or remove an infinite number of rooms without having to adjust that fixed space. In case of Mr. Almond's infinite road, the distance forward and in the past are already an impossible construct of infinity. He simply tries to use what you call an "intuition pump" to answer back Hilbert's Hotel through a mere strawman without addressing the internal warrants of the argument.

and Grim Reaper paradoxes.

This is an interesting paradox, but it doesn't help the case, because it attacks time travel, not infinite regresses.

The Grim Reaper paradox attacks the possibility of infinites.

The common argument is made in conjunction with Hilbert's Hotel.

P1. If there could be a backwards infinite series of events, Hilbert's Hotel would be possible.
P2. If Hilbert's Hotel were possible, the GR Paradox could happen.
P3. The GR Paradox cannot happen.
P4. Therefore, there cannot be a backwards infinite sequence of events.

This serves as an external justification for the validity of Hilbert's Hotel.

However, a simplified and independent version of this argument holds true.

P1. If there could be a backwards infinite series of events the GR Paradox could happen.
P2. The GR Paradox cannot happen.
P3. Therefore, there cannot be a backwards infinite sequence of events.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 12:30:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 11:10:23 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:18:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
Must the Universe have an origin? Must it be caused? Why can't it be infinite?

Our minds, as human beings, only seem to have the capacity to comprehend the scientific doctrine of action-reaction, cause-effect, and an unbreakable adherence to duality. However, this doctrine is self-effacing.

If all things that occur must have reason for occurrence, then all events would be infinite, having no origin, and no end. You say that the Universe cannot just exist,....so you blame its existence on God. But then you refuse to justify why God can just exist without cause. What caused God? This logic, this necessessity for cause is an infinite loop that ultimately destroys itself. If EVERYTHING must be caused by something, then everything in whole is not caused by anything, for it has no origin, for it is an infinite loop of cause and effect!

We need to make ourselves comfortable with the notion that the Universe has always existed, because the other option is logically unsound. If the Universe has always existed, then we lose the last shred of cosmological support for intelligent design by a God.

Can you reform to the cosmos / "everything"? The Universe is almost certain to have a cause, it's the singularity now that is the question. It's like learning of the earth, then learning of the next biggest thing, other planets, then next biggest thing, the solar system, then next biggest thing, a galaxy, then the next biggest thing, the Universe, then the next biggest thing, the cosmos.

The Universe is the universe because of the event "big bang". Unless we disagree on this event, I feel we have a semantical difficulty.

Actually, I've been reading some criticism of the Big Bang, and despite its popularity, it's still just a theory used to explain certain phenomena that could be explained without asserting a cause of the Universe. For example, Hubble observed redshift in stars, which indicated that the galaxies were in motion away from each other, which indicated that the Universe was expanding,...which in turn gave birth to the theory.

However, there is still a possibility that redshift is caused by something other than velocity, which, I think with my very limited knowledge of physics and cosmology, would collapse Big Bang Theory.

So despite theories, nothing says the Universe must be caused, and there is no argument out there that proves this impossible.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 12:41:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 12:30:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 11:10:23 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:18:23 AM, 000ike wrote:
Must the Universe have an origin? Must it be caused? Why can't it be infinite?

Our minds, as human beings, only seem to have the capacity to comprehend the scientific doctrine of action-reaction, cause-effect, and an unbreakable adherence to duality. However, this doctrine is self-effacing.

If all things that occur must have reason for occurrence, then all events would be infinite, having no origin, and no end. You say that the Universe cannot just exist,....so you blame its existence on God. But then you refuse to justify why God can just exist without cause. What caused God? This logic, this necessessity for cause is an infinite loop that ultimately destroys itself. If EVERYTHING must be caused by something, then everything in whole is not caused by anything, for it has no origin, for it is an infinite loop of cause and effect!

We need to make ourselves comfortable with the notion that the Universe has always existed, because the other option is logically unsound. If the Universe has always existed, then we lose the last shred of cosmological support for intelligent design by a God.

Can you reform to the cosmos / "everything"? The Universe is almost certain to have a cause, it's the singularity now that is the question. It's like learning of the earth, then learning of the next biggest thing, other planets, then next biggest thing, the solar system, then next biggest thing, a galaxy, then the next biggest thing, the Universe, then the next biggest thing, the cosmos.

The Universe is the universe because of the event "big bang". Unless we disagree on this event, I feel we have a semantical difficulty.

Actually, I've been reading some criticism of the Big Bang, and despite its popularity, it's still just a theory used to explain certain phenomena that could be explained without asserting a cause of the Universe. For example, Hubble observed redshift in stars, which indicated that the galaxies were in motion away from each other, which indicated that the Universe was expanding,...which in turn gave birth to the theory.

However, there is still a possibility that redshift is caused by something other than velocity, which, I think with my very limited knowledge of physics and cosmology, would collapse Big Bang Theory.

So despite theories, nothing says the Universe must be caused, and there is no argument out there that proves this impossible.

Again I will assert that actual infinites are impossible, thus the past must be finite. However, even if this argument were to fail then I would advocate the argument from contingency which holds true independent of whether or not the universe has existed for a finite or infinite amount of time. The argument holds that something is necessary if it could not possibly have failed to exist. Something is contingent if it is not necessary. The universe is contingent insofar as the state of affairs in which nothing exists at all is logically plausible, even if it is not the actual state of affairs. If the universe exists contingently then the universe's existence must have some sort of an explanation, for if the universe may not exist at all then why does it exist? Thus, the universe has a cause for existence, whether or not the universe began to exist, and independent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. As formalized,this separate argument, the Modal Cosmological Argument states:

1. Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
2. The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
3. The universe has a reason for its existence.
4. If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
5. God exists.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:13:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The universe is everything that exists and is postulated. It is literally existence.

Existence cannot have a start. If there be a creator god, it is not separate from the universe. This would be nonsensical.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:18:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 2:13:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The universe is everything that exists and is postulated. It is literally existence.

Existence cannot have a start. If there be a creator god, it is not separate from the universe. This would be nonsensical.

You're just relying on semantics on what constitutes the Universe. The Universe is physical space, physical matter, and the concept of time. The Universe is observable, but a God is not. Therefore in order for a God to exist, he must exist outside of the Universe. Hence, existence beyond the Universe.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:20:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 2:13:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The universe is everything that exists and is postulated. It is literally existence.

Existence cannot have a start. If there be a creator god, it is not separate from the universe. This would be nonsensical.

What is nonsensical is to claim that the creator of matter is made of matter, that the creator of time is anything but timeless.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:20:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 2:18:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 2:13:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The universe is everything that exists and is postulated. It is literally existence.

Existence cannot have a start. If there be a creator god, it is not separate from the universe. This would be nonsensical.

You're just relying on semantics on what constitutes the Universe. The Universe is physical space, physical matter, and the concept of time. The Universe is observable, but a God is not. Therefore in order for a God to exist, he must exist outside of the Universe. Hence, existence beyond the Universe.

^ This.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:25:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 2:18:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 2:13:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The universe is everything that exists and is postulated. It is literally existence.

Existence cannot have a start. If there be a creator god, it is not separate from the universe. This would be nonsensical.

You're just relying on semantics on what constitutes the Universe.

There are two different definitions.

The Universe is physical space, physical matter, and the concept of time.

Concept of time?.. how bout calling the physical conceptual too?

The Universe is observable, but a God is not. Therefore in order for a God to exist, he must exist outside of the Universe. Hence, existence beyond the Universe.

If god is separate from the physical how do they interact? by what method?

if they can interact than there must be some manner by which they interact.. They must be related in some manner.. Not wholly separate.

Holistically, all things considered, I'd suggest that any Creator cannot be wholly separate from his creation... Either it came forth from what he is, following forth from his nature... or, he arranged substance that exists in the same plane of existence of himself, with which he can naturally interact and whatnot, into something else.

so either it's part of his nature... or him and his creation are part of a broader nature.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:28:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 2:25:54 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If god is separate from the physical how do they interact? by what method?

if they can interact than there must be some manner by which they interact.. They must be related in some manner.. Not wholly separate.

for what governs their interaction but their natures...

if their natures can interact.. then by what rules? what governs their interaction? is this governor not some Broader nature which they both fall under?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:51:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 2:25:54 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/18/2012 2:18:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 2:13:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The universe is everything that exists and is postulated. It is literally existence.

Existence cannot have a start. If there be a creator god, it is not separate from the universe. This would be nonsensical.

You're just relying on semantics on what constitutes the Universe.

There are two different definitions.

The Universe is physical space, physical matter, and the concept of time.

Concept of time?.. how bout calling the physical conceptual too?

The Universe is observable, but a God is not. Therefore in order for a God to exist, he must exist outside of the Universe. Hence, existence beyond the Universe.

If god is separate from the physical how do they interact? by what method?

They do not. I would actually like to debate that a personal God is impossible.

if they can interact than there must be some manner by which they interact.. They must be related in some manner.. Not wholly separate.

Holistically, all things considered, I'd suggest that any Creator cannot be wholly separate from his creation... Either it came forth from what he is, following forth from his nature... or, he arranged substance that exists in the same plane of existence of himself, with which he can naturally interact and whatnot, into something else.

so either it's part of his nature... or him and his creation are part of a broader nature.

You're essentially applying the logic that governs our Universe to a being transcendent of it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:52:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 2:51:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
You're essentially applying the logic that governs our Universe to a being transcendent of it.

no.. I'm applying what is mean by the concept of "creator" to a being claimed to be a creator.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:53:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Time is just causality in motion. God cannot be beyond time, god couldn't cause anything if that was the case.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "physical".
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:58:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 2:53:09 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Time is just causality in motion. God cannot be beyond time, god couldn't cause anything if that was the case.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "physical".

That is the point. God is conceptualized as an uncaused cause. The timeless creator of time. The immaterial creator of matter.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 3:04:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 2:25:54 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/18/2012 2:18:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 2:13:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The universe is everything that exists and is postulated. It is literally existence.

Existence cannot have a start. If there be a creator god, it is not separate from the universe. This would be nonsensical.

You're just relying on semantics on what constitutes the Universe.

There are two different definitions.

The Universe is physical space, physical matter, and the concept of time.

Concept of time?.. how bout calling the physical conceptual too?

The Universe is observable, but a God is not. Therefore in order for a God to exist, he must exist outside of the Universe. Hence, existence beyond the Universe.

If god is separate from the physical how do they interact? by what method?

if they can interact than there must be some manner by which they interact.. They must be related in some manner.. Not wholly separate.

Holistically, all things considered, I'd suggest that any Creator cannot be wholly separate from his creation... Either it came forth from what he is, following forth from his nature... or, he arranged substance that exists in the same plane of existence of himself, with which he can naturally interact and whatnot, into something else.

so either it's part of his nature... or him and his creation are part of a broader nature.

I can create a stone tower, but I am not made of stone. I am of time, but this stone tower is not. It may degrade as time passes, but not because time passes. It is because of natural forces such as weathering and erosion. While these processes happen over a period of time, they are not necessary processes. It is not in then nature of the stone tower to be restricted by time as it is in my nature as its creator. I can quite obviously interact with the tower. I can add to it and take away from it, but I will never be the same as the tower. We will never share the same nature. I am living. I have emotions. I can communicate. I am a slave to time. The tower is none of these things.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 3:06:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think calling God a creator of anything personifies the concept too much. God is as much a creator as a bowl of milk is the creator of sour milk.

In the end, the personified god makes both the concept and the word itself misleading.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 3:08:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 2:53:09 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Time is just causality in motion. God cannot be beyond time, god couldn't cause anything if that was the case.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "physical".

I think the human mind has limitations on its ability to comprehend things like the nonexistence of time,...and the nonexistence of space. We could not possibly conceptualize the state of being prior to the Universe, and making any assumptions on what that state was will likely be false.

God is the creator of time, why would he be bound by the rules of his creation? Anyway, all this only follows if you accept that the Universe is finite and caused in the first place, otherwise, we can assume that the Universe has always existed. <-- someone should have a debate on that
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 3:12:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 3:04:04 PM, Mestari wrote:
I can create a stone tower, but I am not made of stone.

You are made of atoms.. and physical substance though...

I am of time, but this stone tower is not.

Yeah.. it exists in a place and time.. and exists differently depending on the time.. It is of time.

It may degrade as time passes, but not because time passes.

It differs with time.. it is NOT the same thing at any one time than it is at any other... it is slightly different..

Any absolutely defined physical thing (Like a stone tower for example) exists at ONE given time... if you speak of a stone tower as the same today as it was yesterday (like we normally do) then you're not speaking of a singular, absolutely defined, physical thing.

It is because of natural forces such as weathering and erosion. While these processes happen over a period of time, they are not necessary processes. It is not in then nature of the stone tower to be restricted by time as it is in my nature as its creator. I can quite obviously interact with the tower. I can add to it and take away from it, but I will never be the same as the tower. We will never share the same nature. I am living. I have emotions. I can communicate. I am a slave to time. The tower is none of these things.

You can affect the tower by nature of your both being physical.. by the laws of the physical.

by your both falling under "the physical"...

that is what I mean when I say you share the nature of your creation
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 3:14:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 3:12:28 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
that is what I mean when I say you share the nature of your creation

You can arrange things to make a tower by means of your hands.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 3:15:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 3:08:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/18/2012 2:53:09 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Time is just causality in motion. God cannot be beyond time, god couldn't cause anything if that was the case.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "physical".

I think the human mind has limitations on its ability to comprehend things like the nonexistence of time,...and the nonexistence of space. We could not possibly conceptualize the state of being prior to the Universe, and making any assumptions on what that state was will likely be false.

Wait a minute....that's a paradox! There is no such thing as "prior to the Universe" because that assumes that time existed beyond the creation of time. There is no way to logically assert anything beyond the confines of time. Space time and matter must have always existed then.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 3:18:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 3:12:28 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/18/2012 3:04:04 PM, Mestari wrote:
I can create a stone tower, but I am not made of stone.

You are made of atoms.. and physical substance though...


What are thoughts made up of?

I am of time, but this stone tower is not.

Yeah.. it exists in a place and time.. and exists differently depending on the time.. It is of time.


The tower does not change because of time; it changes because of forces external to it such as those that cause erosion. If these forces were absent, the stone would remain unchanged regardless of how much time has passed.

It may degrade as time passes, but not because time passes.

It differs with time.. it is NOT the same thing at any one time than it is at any other... it is slightly different..

Any absolutely defined physical thing (Like a stone tower for example) exists at ONE given time... if you speak of a stone tower as the same today as it was yesterday (like we normally do) then you're not speaking of a singular, absolutely defined, physical thing.

It is because of natural forces such as weathering and erosion. While these processes happen over a period of time, they are not necessary processes. It is not in then nature of the stone tower to be restricted by time as it is in my nature as its creator. I can quite obviously interact with the tower. I can add to it and take away from it, but I will never be the same as the tower. We will never share the same nature. I am living. I have emotions. I can communicate. I am a slave to time. The tower is none of these things.

You can affect the tower by nature of your both being physical.. by the laws of the physical.

by your both falling under "the physical"...

that is what I mean when I say you share the nature of your creation

Again I reiterate, are thoughts encompassed in "the physical" and if so, how do stones share the qualities necessary to think.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.