(February 9, 2016 at 9:57 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Fortunately Aquinas's 5 ways do not depend on a specific cosmological model. All that matters is that reality is intelligible. Physics is a second order discipline contingent on philosophical first principles known by observation.

Fortunately they don't lead to the conclusions that Aquinas claimed for them either.

alpha male Wrote:

Quote:He may not have presented it well, but his point is valid. 

If I allow that an eternally existing god is possible, then yes, I must allow that an eternally existing universe is also possible. If the evidence indicated that the universe has existed eternally, or back when we didn't have evidence one way or another on that question, your counter argument was fine. But, now that the evidence indicates that the universe has a beginning, that counter argument no longer holds.

This iteration of the universe had a beginning. Whether that was the beginning of everything depends on what that hot, dense speck energy was doing before it expanded. Did time begin then? If so, the universe has literally existed for all of time. Was there already time? Was that hot dense thing around forever until then? Was it the product of a previous version of the universe?

We know about when our universe of matter and energy in the forms we observe started. We don't know what the heck was going on before that, or even for sure if 'before' has any meaning in this context.

Our reality could have been started at a certain point, with a finite or even infinite history "recorded" in the form of evidence left behind. In other words, the results of a simulated history. However far back in history we managed to "measure", the simulation could read what the data should have been using an algorithm and feed that back to us.

Definitely. That's definitely what happened. I just decided.

(February 9, 2016 at 12:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:You are just another straw-man blowing, sociopathic punk! Scientists make their most logical conclusions according to the data which they have, when it seems to make logical sense that they know something within a range of accuracy, and even when they are wrong they are closer to the truth than any theosphist asshole. If your version of the truth on something which at this point cannot be directly experienced by anyone is absolute, then the only truth of that is that it's absolutely wrong!

Is the sociopathic part in reference to some other post?

Yeah, Mr.Hanky seems quite a bit over the top there. Drunk posting?

While I am moving toward the theory that it takes a sociopath to go from simply believing a theistic idea to making your life a campaign to throw shit at all manner of logical thought and derive smug self-satisfaction from annoying those who won't vindicate you in your foolishness....that notwithstanding, the latter trait does describe sociopathy. Choosing a screen name such as "alpha male" expresses narcissism at best. So yes, it's the overall pattern.

(February 9, 2016 at 11:58 am)Alex K Wrote: As soon as you use concepts such as a "mover" in your philosophical argument and then talk about its properties, it doesn't seem to be a hierarchy any more where physics is secondary…Can you give an example of an argument they make that says something about reality without relying on physics?

I find it difficult to reply since I do not know your level of familiarity with the Scholastic nomenclature. Generally, physics deals with particular beings and the types of changes they undergo. Metaphysics deals with being itself and what does not or is not subject to change. So if someone makes an observation about existence as such, and not just a particular thing or type of thing’s existence, then it is an observation of a higher order than physics.

(February 9, 2016 at 12:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Fortunately they [the 5 Ways] don't lead to the conclusions that Aquinas claimed for them either.

Only because you have made a prior existential commitment to the notion that causal relationships are ‘brute facts’. The problem is that you generally refuse to lie in the bed you’ve made for yourself.

(February 9, 2016 at 7:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I find it difficult to reply since I do not know your level of familiarity with the Scholastic theistic nomenclature.

Fixed it for you.

(February 9, 2016 at 7:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 9, 2016 at 11:58 am)Alex K Wrote: As soon as you use concepts such as a "mover" in your philosophical argument and then talk about its properties, it doesn't seem to be a hierarchy any more where physics is secondary…Can you give an example of an argument they make that says something about reality without relying on physics?

I find it difficult to reply since I do not know your level of familiarity with the Scholastic nomenclature.

Just assume that I am not familiar with it

Special pleading.

(February 3, 2016 at 9:56 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There are certain things in Catholicism that are non negotiable. These are official doctrinal teachings on faith and morals. They can be found in the Catechism. Beyond that, Catholics are free to believe what we want so long as we stay true to our well formed conscience.

You should tell that to the Irish conference of bishops. Thy're happy to claim 84% of the country is catlick based off dodgy census data, even though their own nuber crunching gives a figure in the low 20s.