"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!
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!
