Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creation and "first cause"

Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 5:10:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've seen that a lot of theists justify their complicated, lengthy, and detailed theological beliefs on the simple fact that the universe exists at all. There's then this idea of a "first cause," because something must be caused to happen to happen.

This seems really contradictory to me, though, because this "first cause" would be something that wasn't caused, therefore negating the idea that everything needs a cause. If everything must have a creator, then who created god?

Also, if Christians believe that everything has a cause, that all events are therefore predetermined, how can they still believe in free-will?

How are these things explained by people of the Christian faith?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 5:13:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Okay, I think you've already explained the answer.

At 1/14/2010 5:10:17 PM, Harlan wrote:
I've seen that a lot of theists justify their complicated, lengthy, and detailed theological beliefs on the simple fact that the universe exists at all. There's then this idea of a "first cause," because something must be caused to happen to happen.

This seems really contradictory to me, though, because this "first cause" would be something that wasn't caused, therefore negating the idea that everything needs a cause. If everything must have a creator, then who created god?
The universe, having no free will, requires a first cause. God, having free will, requires no cause.

Also, if Christians believe that everything has a cause, that all events are therefore predetermined, how can they still believe in free-will?
Free will is not part of causation. Independent minds are independent from causation.

How are these things explained by people of the Christian faith?

Free will =/= causation.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 5:18:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Maybe I think the correct formulation of that argument is "whatever begins to exist has a cause" or "every contingent thing has an sufficient explanation for it's existence or a cause of it's existence".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 5:19:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 5:13:28 PM, mongeese wrote:

The universe, having no free will, requires a first cause. God, having free will, requires no cause.

Wut? O.o

Syllogism.

Free will =/= causation.

Free will is self source as causation.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2010 5:38:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The universe, having no free will, requires a first cause. God, having free will, requires no cause.

If god encompasses everything, wouldn't he be the universe?

Also, if Christians believe that everything has a cause, that all events are therefore predetermined, how can they still believe in free-will?
Free will is not part of causation. Independent minds are independent from causation.

That doesn't make sense. How can you have a universe that is selectively predetermined? The decisions of these free-willed men and the events of the universe are directly related, so there is either causation or there isn't causation.

If you say that everything is predetermined except the actions of people, then necessarily everyone would exist in their own universe independent of the real universe, because what they decide to do might be contrary to what was predetermined to happen.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 2:54:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 5:10:17 PM, Harlan wrote:
I've seen that a lot of theists justify their complicated, lengthy, and detailed theological beliefs on the simple fact that the universe exists at all. There's then this idea of a "first cause," because something must be caused to happen to happen.

This seems really contradictory to me, though, because this "first cause" would be something that wasn't caused, therefore negating the idea that everything needs a cause. If everything must have a creator, then who created god?

Also, if Christians believe that everything has a cause, that all events are therefore predetermined, how can they still believe in free-will?

How are these things explained by people of the Christian faith?

Anything created must have not existed at one time.. God exists outside of time, in eternity.

Genesis 1 (New International Version)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

John 1:1 (New International Version)

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Cross.. the Cross.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 8:36:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 5:13:28 PM, mongeese wrote:
Okay, I think you've already explained the answer.

At 1/14/2010 5:10:17 PM, Harlan wrote:
I've seen that a lot of theists justify their complicated, lengthy, and detailed theological beliefs on the simple fact that the universe exists at all. There's then this idea of a "first cause," because something must be caused to happen to happen.

This seems really contradictory to me, though, because this "first cause" would be something that wasn't caused, therefore negating the idea that everything needs a cause. If everything must have a creator, then who created god?
The universe, having no free will, requires a first cause. God, having free will, requires no cause.

Also, if Christians believe that everything has a cause, that all events are therefore predetermined, how can they still believe in free-will?
Free will is not part of causation. Independent minds are independent from causation.

How are these things explained by people of the Christian faith?

Free will =/= causation.

By that logic, humans, having free will, require no cause.
Discipulus
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 7:20:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 5:10:17 PM, Harlan wrote:
I've seen that a lot of theists justify their complicated, lengthy, and detailed theological beliefs on the simple fact that the universe exists at all. There's then this idea of a "first cause," because something must be caused to happen to happen.

This seems really contradictory to me, though, because this "first cause" would be something that wasn't caused, therefore negating the idea that everything needs a cause. If everything must have a creator, then who created god?

Also, if Christians believe that everything has a cause, that all events are therefore predetermined, how can they still believe in free-will?

How are these things explained by people of the Christian faith?

Simple: God doesn't have to play by his own rules.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 7:47:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
then who created god? Nothing God is eternal. Needs no creator to create something that is without time. Time was created by God so that physical matter could consist and exist with reason and human metality being the understanding of the mind.

If I think of something it is due to what I have seen, I gather up ideas and file them into orders that makes sense, although thought and the mind are not physical, they are affect by time and physical matter.

God does not need a creator, but we do. We need one, we are a product of one that being God.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 8:26:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 7:47:46 PM, GodSands wrote:
God does not need a creator, but we do. We need one, we are a product of one that being God.

Wow, what a circle that runs in. I've missed you GodSands.

Anyways, I hate to point it out (lol, not really), but if the Creator lives in what is essentially a timeless dimension, where there is no past-present-future, what exactly is the purpose of creating finite beings with the "choice" to join Him, or not, if He already knows what beings will be there, and essentially already are, because his dimension is timeless?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 8:44:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 8:26:32 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/15/2010 7:47:46 PM, GodSands wrote:
God does not need a creator, but we do. We need one, we are a product of one that being God.

Wow, what a circle that runs in. I've missed you GodSands.

Anyways, I hate to point it out (lol, not really), but if the Creator lives in what is essentially a timeless dimension, where there is no past-present-future, what exactly is the purpose of creating finite beings with the "choice" to join Him, or not, if He already knows what beings will be there, and essentially already are, because his dimension is timeless?

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, only because I'm interested in the response.

Yes, God knows what you are ultimately going to do, but that's only because He knows what choices you will make. In other words, you still have the choice to make the choices you want to make. It's just that He knows what you will choose.

Free will has never been predicated on foreknowledge. Take a starving rat. You place the rat in the middle of some cheese and a boring, everyday pencil. Although you know the rat will ultimately choose the cheese, you did not violate his free will. It was still that rat's choice. Similarly, God knows what choices you will make, but you still get to make them on your own free will.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2010 9:47:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/15/2010 2:54:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Anything created must have not existed at one time.. God exists outside of time, in eternity.
DATCMOTO, in attempting to explain why God requires no cause, explains precisely why the universe itself cannot have been caused.

Anything created must have not existed at some point in time. The universe exists during all of time - there is no time when the universe doesn't exist (this is fact, since time is a fabric of the universe). Therefore, the universe was not created.
TotalTruth
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 1:16:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
God is a self-existent being he does not require a cause. He is a neccesary being. Anything that exists neccesarily exists by the necessity of their own nature. By definition he does not require a cause. Asking what the cause is of a self-existing being is an inchorent question . You dont ask why a female isn't a male because by definition a female is different than a male. A self-existing being by definition exist necessarily and not as a contingent being. We on the other hand are contingent beings, which are caused to exist by something else. Only contingent beings have to have causes. Everything in space such as stars, planets, and persons are contingent. Now if you agree with the majority of scientists that the universe came into existence and had a beginning through the Big Bang the Universe itself requires a cause of its existence. A good way to explain to this would be to take an example from William Lane Craig. He illustrates a story of a hiker going through the woods. He eventually comes upon a random ball laying in the brush. He doesn't assume that this ball popped into existence uncaused. Now if we enlarge that ball till it is the size of universe it doesn't take away the need for an explantion of its existence. This cause has to be an immaterial, changeless, uncaused, and timeless being which created the universe. This being must be immaterial because it created space and therefore must transcend space, it can't be physical. It must be uncaused because you can't have an infinite retreat of causes its not mathematically possible. This being must be timeless because it itself created time, therefore making it changeless without the universe. You could conclude from this that this cause is God.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 1:22:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 1:16:53 PM, TotalTruth wrote:
Anything that exists neccesarily exists by the necessity of their own nature.

lol

Welcome to the madhouse, I mean website.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 2:23:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 1:16:53 PM, TotalTruth wrote:
God is a self-existent being he does not require a cause. He is a neccesary being. Anything that exists neccesarily exists by the necessity of their own nature. By definition he does not require a cause. Asking what the cause is of a self-existing being is an inchorent question . You dont ask why a female isn't a male because by definition a female is different than a male. A self-existing being by definition exist necessarily and not as a contingent being. We on the other hand are contingent beings, which are caused to exist by something else. Only contingent beings have to have causes. Everything in space such as stars, planets, and persons are contingent. Now if you agree with the majority of scientists that the universe came into existence and had a beginning through the Big Bang the Universe itself requires a cause of its existence. A good way to explain to this would be to take an example from William Lane Craig. He illustrates a story of a hiker going through the woods. He eventually comes upon a random ball laying in the brush. He doesn't assume that this ball popped into existence uncaused. Now if we enlarge that ball till it is the size of universe it doesn't take away the need for an explantion of its existence. This cause has to be an immaterial, changeless, uncaused, and timeless being which created the universe. This being must be immaterial because it created space and therefore must transcend space, it can't be physical. It must be uncaused because you can't have an infinite retreat of causes its not mathematically possible. This being must be timeless because it itself created time, therefore making it changeless without the universe. You could conclude from this that this cause is God.

1. Existence is not in the nature of any object, as it is not a true predicate.

2. Screwed up analogy about the ball. We use inductive reasoning to say that the ball is "out of place", what type of reasoning can we use to say that the universe is "out of place"? The premises we use to make that analysis about the ball don't apply to every circumstance.

3. Time was never created, time doesn't inherently exist. Time is simply a phenomenon that results from how we choose to understand change as human beings with the capacity to remember. Without memory, time doesn't really exist. So no, no being created Time. The being might have created a universe that initiated the first change and therefore, time, but not Time directly. As such, the being need not be timeless nor changeless.

4. Your conclusion is invalid. You can conclude a primary cause, but you can't conclude God.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
TotalTruth
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 5:15:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1. Existence is not in the nature of any object, as it is not a true predicate.

The view that existence is not a true predicate is a view held by some philosophers and theologians such as Immanuel Kant. On the other hand many philosophers find this view problematic such as Russel and Moore. I recommend Moore's article "Is existence a predicate?" for a refutation of this view.

2. Screwed up analogy about the ball. We use inductive reasoning to say that the ball is "out of place", what type of reasoning can we use to say that the universe is "out of place"? The premises we use to make that analysis about the ball don't apply to every circumstance.

I was simply trying to use this analogy to show that contingent beings dont just pop into existence from nothing without a cause. No doubt your reasoning would be that this ball is out of place, but you wouldn't assume that it popped into existence from nothing without a cause.

3. Time was never created, time doesn't inherently exist. Time is simply a phenomenon that results from how we choose to understand change as human beings with the capacity to remember. Without memory, time doesn't really exist. So no, no being created Time. The being might have created a universe that initiated the first change and therefore, time, but not Time directly. As such, the being need not be timeless nor changeless.

Your view that time doesn't inherently exist is a thesis put forth by some scientists. This thesis cannont be proven or disproven it, it is philosophical statement, however it is absurd to think time does not exist. Just because we can't prove that we are just bodies in a matrix experiencing a fake world doesn't mean that this view is true, it would be irrational to hold this view. Most if not all philosophers agree that time exists, I haven't really heard of one who actually questions the existence of time.

4. Your conclusion is invalid. You can conclude a primary cause, but you can't conclude God.
I merely think it is reasonable from the statements to conclude that the cause of the universe is god.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 5:28:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 5:15:19 PM, TotalTruth wrote:
4. Your conclusion is invalid. You can conclude a primary cause, but you can't conclude God.
I merely think it is reasonable from the statements to conclude that the cause of the universe is god.

-- I agree. At this point, our knowledge on possible precedents for this universe is non-existent. This "first cause" could theoreticaly be just about anything. The other side of this lack of knowledge is that it is nearly impossible to show any view more likely than another.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 5:37:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 1:16:53 PM, TotalTruth wrote:
This cause has to be an immaterial, changeless, uncaused, and timeless being which created the universe. This being must be immaterial because it created space and therefore must transcend space, it can't be physical. It must be uncaused because you can't have an infinite retreat of causes its not mathematically possible. This being must be timeless because it itself created time, therefore making it changeless without the universe. You could conclude from this that this cause is God.

How did you reach the conclusion of a "being" as the timeless, uncaused cause?

Uncaused caused, therefore God. Non-sequitur.

An eternal Multiverse is much more probable.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2010 5:44:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 5:37:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/16/2010 1:16:53 PM, TotalTruth wrote:
This cause has to be an immaterial, changeless, uncaused, and timeless being which created the universe. This being must be immaterial because it created space and therefore must transcend space, it can't be physical. It must be uncaused because you can't have an infinite retreat of causes its not mathematically possible. This being must be timeless because it itself created time, therefore making it changeless without the universe. You could conclude from this that this cause is God.

How did you reach the conclusion of a "being" as the timeless, uncaused cause?

Uncaused caused, therefore God. Non-sequitur.

An eternal Multiverse is much more probable.

Also, even if we did conclude God, which God? Zeus, Apollo, Yahweh, Allah? It really is a pointless argument for Christianity. If anything, it favors Deism, not Christianity.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 7:57:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 5:37:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/16/2010 1:16:53 PM, TotalTruth wrote:
An eternal Multiverse is much more probable.

The concept of a multiverse is illogical. If the universe were considered a building, outside of which nothing exists, the different rooms in the building would not equal more buildings. Now, if the "separate universes" in a "multiverse" were individual buildings, then the city in which these buildings exist would still be the one Universe. No matter what kind of split personality, theoretical multi-dimensions, etc. a scientist may try to theorize exist, they do not exist outside of one Ultimate Reality. If two you's exist, then the Ultimate Reality is that there are two of you living in the one Universe.
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 8:07:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/16/2010 5:44:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Also, even if we did conclude God, which God? Zeus, Apollo, Yahweh, Allah? It really is a pointless argument for Christianity. If anything, it favors Deism, not Christianity.

They are all personifications of one God.

Zeus= Theos= Deus= God.

Yahweh= a transliterated name made up from letters because the true name could never be uttered (and probably never existed in the first place), but essentially means "I am that I am". This can be understood as "that which simply is".

Allah= Alaha= Aloho= Elaha= Elohim= God

Every religion has a creator god, and every major monotheistic religion believes in the God of Abraham. It is not controversial to say that if a god exists in any form, it is the creator god referenced in every religion, and many other gods are personifications of this same god.
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 8:24:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/14/2010 5:10:17 PM, Harlan wrote:
I've seen that a lot of theists justify their complicated, lengthy, and detailed theological beliefs on the simple fact that the universe exists at all. There's then this idea of a "first cause," because something must be caused to happen to happen.

-Scientists have the same problem. Many scientists have resigned themselves to one of two facts. A- They will never be able to adequately explain what happened before the cataclysmic event that started the creation of the Universe, or B- Only what scientists consider 'supernatural', ie. a god, can explain and is the reason for this cataclysmic event. This has never been simply a religious question.

This seems really contradictory to me, though, because this "first cause" would be something that wasn't caused, therefore negating the idea that everything needs a cause. If everything must have a creator, then who created god?

-Just think of the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred and transformed. Explain the source of energy (which is neither created nor destroyed), and win the Nobel Prize.

Also, if Christians believe that everything has a cause, that all events are therefore predetermined, how can they still believe in free-will?

-Believing everything has a cause isn't believing all events are pre-determined. In fact, Newton's Third Law poses a similar notion. This has nothing to do with predetermination.

How are these things explained by people of the Christian faith?

-I'm not Christian, but if you are convinced that the Christian Faith is neither logical, nor useful to you individually, why do you care so much what Christians believe? Do you have a better way to offer people hope, cause change, discipline, and structure where they have none? Even if Christianity were a complete fictitious sham, the fundamentals of Christianity are based on the imitation of the life of a man (who may or may not have existed) who was perfect before God, man, and his peers. Another fundamental teaching is that if you forgive others for their sins against you, accept that this previously mentioned man is your savior, mentor, and model to live by, confess your sins, accept that you will never actually "be" like this man, rather you can live vicariously through his experiences, you will gain peace of mind in the very least. A third fundamental teaching is that if you do these things to the best of your ability, treat others fairly and kindly, and teach others to do the same through your own example, you will have a place in heaven.

Now, even if we remove all the BS from that, it is a pretty good model (though not a very well followed one) for you to live your life. Unless you are prepared for the mass awakening, loss of faith, hope, and structure to over a billion people on Earth, then why worry so much about Christianity???

It is true- there is a lot Christians can learn by opening up their minds to the possibility that their theology, doctrine, and dogmas are not correct, not logical, and not based on what others have claimed they are based on. With that said- there is a lot non-Christians can gain by truly understanding Christianity (and other religions), and accepting religion as a part of human evolution rather than attacking religion as some sort of backward practice. Humans are religious because humans are conscious enough to imagine something bigger than themselves. This is not wrong- this is evolution at work.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 8:28:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Started off disagreeing with Mangani, ended up agreeing with him. Good posts.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 12:29:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 7:57:52 AM, Mangani wrote:
At 1/16/2010 5:37:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/16/2010 1:16:53 PM, TotalTruth wrote:
An eternal Multiverse is much more probable.

The concept of a multiverse is illogical.

No, it's people's misunderstanding of the concept.

If the universe were considered a building, outside of which nothing exists, the different rooms in the building would not equal more buildings. Now, if the "separate universes" in a "multiverse" were individual buildings, then the city in which these buildings exist would still be the one Universe. No matter what kind of split personality, theoretical multi-dimensions, etc. a scientist may try to theorize exist, they do not exist outside of one Ultimate Reality. If two you's exist, then the Ultimate Reality is that there are two of you living in the one Universe.

Completely agree. Technically, the Multiverse is the Universe because the Universe is everything that exists. So everything you said is correct, but it's not against the idea of a Multiverse. When I say Multiverse, I mean a Universe with multiple singularity points and multiple dimensions.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mangani
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 8:48:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 12:29:41 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote::
Completely agree. Technically, the Multiverse is the Universe because the Universe is everything that exists. So everything you said is correct, but it's not against the idea of a Multiverse. When I say Multiverse, I mean a Universe with multiple singularity points and multiple dimensions.

-First of all, the "multiverse IS" a theory. It is quite a useless theory, at that. What is a dimension? That's like taking a square, and saying one of the sides exists though we can't see it. If we didn't see it, and could prove it exists (we cannot prove other dimensions exist), would we call it something other than the sides we can see? Why?

If the universe has other "dimensions", why would we call them that? Let's say there is a parallel you in another "dimension" of the "multiverse" (a Greek oximoron). Is the other "you" really "you"? Even if you argue that he is made up of the opposite mass that you are made of, that in and of itself would mean it's not you. Not even a reflection of you- unless you share the same consciousness. If you share the same consciousness you would never discover each other. It's like looking in the mirror and wondering what your reflection plans on doing today. If it's you, it's you. If it's not, IT'S NOT. Multiverse theorists definitely SOUND intelligent, but can't intelligently describe something that lacks logic in and of itself- for the name itself lacks logic.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 1:32:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: -Scientists have the same problem. Many scientists have resigned themselves to one of two facts. A- They will never be able to adequately explain what happened before the cataclysmic event that started the creation of the Universe

I wouldn't call that a problem. It seems more like an honest appraisal of the situation. Not knowing is not a problem...

Even if Christianity were a complete fictitious sham, the fundamentals of Christianity are based on the imitation of the life of a man (who may or may not have existed) who was perfect before God, man, and his peers.

If only that were the case. The problem stems from the fact that it is the teachings of Jesus (which offer good moral philosophies) coupled with a lot of counterproductive ideas. As Thomas Jefferson said, separating the two is like taking diamonds from a dunghill.

Luckily there are many Christians today who ignore a lot of those other teachings and have embraced tolerance and do note use their democratic powers to enforce their morals on others. But there are plenty of counter examples as well.
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 4:06:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The creator cannot be any item of the creation. If creator becomes creation, there must be some other creator for this creator to become the creation.

This chain leads to ad-infinitum (Anavastha Dosha), which means that there is no beginning or end for this chain.

at lotus feet of swami
surya
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 5:50:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 4:06:56 AM, dattaswami wrote:
The creator cannot be any item of the creation. If creator becomes creation, there must be some other creator for this creator to become the creation.

This chain leads to ad-infinitum (Anavastha Dosha), which means that there is no beginning or end for this chain.

at lotus feet of swami
surya

So God couldnt create himself? Then God is no longer omnipotent. Thanks for disproving God.
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 9:36:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 5:50:28 AM, tkubok wrote:
So God couldnt create himself? Then God is no longer omnipotent.

Reply: It is illogical. When He is already existing, what is the necessity of creating Himself?

This only reflects the inherent nature not to accept the greatness of any other being. Something like, if I am not great, let others also not be great.

This is not healthy belief.