"Get with the times, huh?
Did I say Universe? Or did I say "all"? Can you envisage a scenario where those two are not coincident? I can.
Can we, humans, affirm that all that exists is contained in this Universe? NO."

The Universe IS all. Lol
Considering space time is expanding into NO space and NO time, it's safe to say there is no existence outside our universe. If you want to be a rebel and refuse to follow the evidence where it leads that's fine, but don't try and call me unreasonable.

" Ultimately, you can't claim anything about any beginning, because you don't know if there was one... you can only claim something about this Universe...."

Well we can have the upmost confidence this universe had a begining believing in an infinite regress of causality is more of a leap of faith than beleiving in an uncaused first cause. That everything just exists with no explanation is more of a stretch then magic

" Don't act like a smug human, thinking you know things you can't possibly know.
If you want to be honest, all you can say is that you don't know if there is a beginning. Anything else, you'll be having to preface everything with a mighty big IF."

Notice that i'm using words like probability, evidence, and the like. I do believe the universe had an ultimate begining, can i prove it empericaly? Nope. But considering the improbability of the contrary, and the evidence leaning heavily towards a begining, you're litteraly butting heads against all reason.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." -Velankin

"Truth is a relationship between an abstract and the concrete."

I'm sure it seems that way from your world view, doesn't mean it's true.

Would it be true that the pen is blue if there were no one around to think it?

You would say no, i would say yes. A result of our different world views.

"The creator is the source of objectivity."
This is nothing more than a bare assertion. If there is no creator, then this is just gibberish. And even on your own terms it's not necessarily true."

I agree! The argument all rides on supporting evidence, of wich you (all athiests) have obviously dismissed. Or one could be genuinely decived growing up in this secular, dogmatic world, unaware of the supporting evidence. I'm making another thread on the topic soon, so stay tuned! This thread has derailed enough as it is.

"Most theologians agree that God is not able to do the logically impossible. Moreover, God's nature is such that he embodies truth; he can't violate his own nature. (by the definition of essence) So God is constrained by the laws of logic. Can God violate the PNC? If God is constrained by logic, then that is an objective truth that he did not create."

These are human paradox's. You cannot try to comprehend God when you yourself think in a 3D box. We can however deduce, for example laws that come forth from said first cause could not possibly be bound by them. Leading us to believe in a material-less, tim-less, space-less cause.

"So we have a cosmological argument and some gibberish about a creator. This is all very underwhelming."

Hey nice strawman you got there!

(October 17, 2016 at 7:26 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: When you talk about "the universe" what is it's dominant quality?

Hmmmmm. . . this game sounds fun. Lemme see. . .

I'd say its dominant quality is that it seems actually to exist. There are things arranged in space, and they do stuff over time. No, wait, that's too many qualities, when you clearly want a single one.

Let's go with it seeming actually to exist.

@Arkilogue
If you want to have a bible study that would be awesome! But for the sake of preserving the philosphical arguments at hand maybe PM would be more appropriate?

(October 17, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

---

"Get with the times, huh?
Did I say Universe? Or did I say "all"? Can you envisage a scenario where those two are not coincident? I can.
Can we, humans, affirm that all that exists is contained in this Universe? NO."

The Universe IS all. Lol
Considering space time is expanding into NO space and NO time, it's safe to say there is no existence outside our universe. If you want to be a rebel and refuse to follow the evidence where it leads that's fine, but don't try and call me unreasonable.

" Ultimately, you can't claim anything about any beginning, because you don't know if there was one... you can only claim something about this Universe...."

Well we can have the upmost confidence this universe had a begining believing in an infinite regress of causality is more of a leap of faith than beleiving in an uncaused first cause. That everything just exists with no explanation is more of a stretch then magic

" Don't act like a smug human, thinking you know things you can't possibly know.
If you want to be honest, all you can say is that you don't know if there is a beginning. Anything else, you'll be having to preface everything with a mighty big IF."

Notice that i'm using words like probability, evidence, and the like. I do believe the universe had an ultimate begining, can i prove it empericaly? Nope. But considering the improbability of the contrary, and the evidence leaning heavily towards a begining, you're litteraly butting heads against all reason.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." -Velankin

"Truth is a relationship between an abstract and the concrete."

I'm sure it seems that way from your world view, doesn't mean it's true.

Would it be true that the pen is blue if there were no one around to think it?

You would say no, i would say yes. A result of our different world views.

"The creator is the source of objectivity."
This is nothing more than a bare assertion. If there is no creator, then this is just gibberish. And even on your own terms it's not necessarily true."

I agree! The argument all rides on supporting evidence, of wich you (all athiests) have obviously dismissed. Or one could be genuinely decived growing up in this secular, dogmatic world, unaware of the supporting evidence. I'm making another thread on the topic soon, so stay tuned! This thread has derailed enough as it is.

"Most theologians agree that God is not able to do the logically impossible. Moreover, God's nature is such that he embodies truth; he can't violate his own nature. (by the definition of essence) So God is constrained by the laws of logic. Can God violate the PNC? If God is constrained by logic, then that is an objective truth that he did not create."

These are human paradox's. You cannot try to comprehend God when you yourself think in a 3D box. We can however deduce, for example laws that come forth from said first cause could not possibly be bound by them. Leading us to believe in a material-less, tim-less, space-less cause.

"So we have a cosmological argument and some gibberish about a creator. This is all very underwhelming."

Hey nice strawman you got there!

---

Please quote properly. Text wall is tl;dr without something to break up the monotony.

(October 17, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: "Most theologians agree that God is not able to do the logically impossible. Moreover, God's nature is such that he embodies truth; he can't violate his own nature. (by the definition of essence) So God is constrained by the laws of logic. Can God violate the PNC? If God is constrained by logic, then that is an objective truth that he did not create."

These are human paradox's. You cannot try to comprehend God when you yourself think in a 3D box. We can however deduce, for example laws that come forth from said first cause could not possibly be bound by them. Leading us to believe in a material-less, tim-less, space-less cause.

Your only response is that He's mysterious? That's a pathetic copout. The rest is just more asserted gibberish.

(October 17, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Did I say Universe? Or did I say "all"? Can you envisage a scenario where those two are not coincident? I can.
Can we, humans, affirm that all that exists is contained in this Universe? NO."

So can I: There are infinite universes and more being created and they are all dominated by voided space with very little matter. Between the universes and above/below them is saturated space dominated by all matter.

Quote:The Universe IS all. Lol
Considering space time is expanding into NO space and NO time, it's safe to say there is no existence outside our universe. If you want to be a rebel and refuse to follow the evidence where it leads that's fine, but don't try and call me unreasonable.

That's an unnecessary assumption.

Quote:" Ultimately, you can't claim anything about any beginning, because you don't know if there was one... you can only claim something about this Universe...."

Well we can have the upmost confidence this universe had a begining believing in an infinite regress of causality is more of a leap of faith than beleiving in an uncaused first cause. That everything just exists with no explanation is more of a stretch then magic

The time-space (so that stuff may move/change and make "time") had a beginning....the stuff flung into motion had no beginning according to the 1st law of thermo dynamics. The "beginning of time" is the beginning of motion not the beginning of stuff.

Quote:These are human paradox's. You cannot try to comprehend God when you yourself think in a 3D box. We can however deduce, for example laws that come forth from said first cause could not possibly be bound by them.

You certainly can try and if you don't you'll never succeed. I dance on a tesseract.

Quote:Leading us to believe in a material-less, tim-less, space-less cause.

Again, an unnecessary assumption. The least special pleading case is that a pre-existent something changed phase/state and what resulted is the universe we find ourselves in. The "beginning" (of a universe) is the phase change.

(October 17, 2016 at 8:27 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 7:26 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: When you talk about "the universe" what is it's dominant quality?

Hmmmmm. . . this game sounds fun.  Lemme see. . .

I'd say its dominant quality is that it seems actually to exist.  There are things arranged in space, and they do stuff over time.  No, wait, that's too many qualities, when you clearly want a single one.

Let's go with it seeming actually to exist.

See that's why I love these simple questions and other people's perspective. I would have listed the dominant aspect of the universe as we find it as "empty" space. We've covered the space vs matter ratio of atoms, yes? The universe "exists" (to our subjective biological sensors) because the space for photon travel, an observer and something for the photon to bounce off of, also exist.

(October 17, 2016 at 8:28 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: @Arkilogue
If you want to have a bible study that would be awesome! But for the sake of preserving the philosphical arguments at hand maybe PM would be more appropriate?

...Or a separate thread. But I'm really not in the mood to explain the word for create is used in verse 1 while the following versed use a different word to describe fashioning something from already existing material.

@ark, it is not enough to look up the word in a concordance. One must also know the patterns of usage across multiple texts. Maybe you have but I'm not sensing that in your responses.

(October 17, 2016 at 9:28 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 8:28 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: @Arkilogue
If you want to have a bible study that would be awesome! But for the sake of preserving the philosphical arguments at hand maybe PM would be more appropriate?

...Or a separate thread. But I'm really not in the mood to explain the word for create is used in verse 1 while the following versed use a different word to describe fashioning something from already existing material.

@ark, it is not enough to look up the word in a concordance. One must also know the patterns of usage across multiple texts. Maybe you have but I'm not sensing that in your responses.

I take that and the archaic/mystic/oral tradition of the culture that gave rise to the OT. Look up the Ain Soph Aur and the Tzumtzum. It describes the infinite light of a limitless God that "carves out a space"/"hides itself from the space of creation by 10 veils of contraction.

The root of the word "Amen", whom the rising Lord Jesus refers to himself as in Rev, means "to be hidden". The exact same description can be found in Egypt as Amun. The story of "Jesus" is far older than 2016 years and no one at that time refereed to the man in question by that name...if that matters to anyone.

(October 17, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 9:28 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: ...Or a separate thread. But I'm really not in the mood to explain the word for create is used in verse 1 while the following versed use a different word to describe fashioning something from already existing material.

@ark, it is not enough to look up the word in a concordance. One must also know the patterns of usage across multiple texts. Maybe you have but I'm not sensing that in your responses.

I take that and the archaic/mystic/oral tradition of the culture that gave rise to the OT.  Look up the Ain Soph Aur and the Tzumtzum. It describes the infinite light of a limitless God that "carves out a space"/"hides itself from the space of creation by 10 veils of contraction.

The root of the word "Amen", whom the rising Lord Jesus refers to himself as in Rev, means "to be hidden".  The exact same description can be found in Egypt as Amun.  The story of "Jesus" is far older than 2016 years and no one at that time refereed to the man in question by that name...if that matters to anyone.

Did you ever do one of those connect the dot pictures? It is supposed to turn out as the Mona Lisa but you make it look like Alfred E. Neuman? It cracks me up when that happens!