Posts: 1494
Threads: 0
Joined: July 26, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 15, 2015 at 6:37 pm
(February 15, 2015 at 6:24 pm)emilynghiem Wrote: (February 15, 2015 at 9:43 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Then what created the reality we experience? After all it must have a cause right? If everything in reality has a cause, what caused god?
Dear Mr.wizard
this is the line of thinking that leads to the conclusion God must be infinite.
for if reality has a creator, and you call that starting point God,
and if there is something that created that, then that becomes the starting point God,
etc. etc. etc. So this goes on to infinity.
this is consistent with the viewpoint that God/creation has no beginning
or no end, and has always been self-existent eternally.
Uh, ya that's exactly the point I was driving home and trying to get him to recognize the hole in his argument. I think you may have directed your post at the wrong person, being that I am an atheist and do not believe in any creator, infinite or not.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 6:22 am
(February 15, 2015 at 5:22 am)emilynghiem Wrote: (January 18, 2015 at 3:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause.
What is wrong with the above premise?
1. It is possible for all things in existence to have no beginning and no end but be self-existent or always existing, and we are just experiencing life linearly where we perceive cause and effect, but this is local to just our existence within the greater universe that may not have had a beginning but always was, without cause or explanation.
What you are describing here is B theory of time. I agree this is a strong possibility.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 6:37 am
(February 15, 2015 at 6:31 pm)robvalue Wrote: But I mean really, all this Kalam stuff is utterly crud. Even if you allow the whole thing, it gets you nowhere towards the obviously intended conclusion. It barely limps over the first hurdle, leaving three other much more difficult hurdles.
Exactly. Kalam boils down to "created things are created." Groundbreaking.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 6:39 am
Lol 
1) I want there to be a god
2) No, really. Really, really want there to be a god!
3) You can't prove there isn't a god
4) The bible says it's true and lots of people are christians
5) I've had a personal experience
6) God exists and is Yahweh
More of an honest approach.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 6:42 am
(February 15, 2015 at 6:24 pm)emilynghiem Wrote: (February 15, 2015 at 9:43 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Then what created the reality we experience? After all it must have a cause right? If everything in reality has a cause, what caused god?
Dear Mr.wizard
this is the line of thinking that leads to the conclusion God must be infinite.
for if reality has a creator, and you call that starting point God,
and if there is something that created that, then that becomes the starting point God,
etc. etc. etc. So this goes on to infinity.
this is consistent with the viewpoint that God/creation has no beginning
or no end, and has always been self-existent eternally.
I don't believe reality had a creator but rather that God is "consequence" of this kind of reality. "Consequence" doesn't really convey what I mean though. I will try to convey what I mean by analogy. The fact that light emanating from a bulb spreads out according to an inverse square law is a "consequence" of the fact our space has 3 spatial dimensions. It doesn't spread out according to an inverse square law by any action of three dimensional space. It spreads out according to an inverse square law because there are three spatial dimensions and when there are three spatial dimensions, it simply has to spread out that way.
I make a some assumptions about reality.
1. reality is eternal.
2. reality is and always has been emergent complex.
3. there are no bounds to emergent complexity
I believe that God is a "consequence" of an eternal emergent complex reality.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 6:47 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2015 at 6:47 am by robvalue.)
Reality made God?
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 6:57 am
That's great that you made assumptions, Heywood. Now comes the part where you have to test them.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 7:00 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2015 at 7:02 am by Heywood.)
(February 18, 2015 at 6:47 am)robvalue Wrote: Reality made God?
Does reality make light spread out from a bulb according to an inverse square law? No it spreads out that way because it can only spread out that way when there are three spatial dimensions. It is a consequence of conditions and not actions. God has to exist in an eternal reality that has always been emergent complex and if there are no bounds to emergent complexity.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 7:01 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2015 at 7:02 am by robvalue.)
Sure. Everyone can believe whatever they want, it's not a problem and to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. But if you want other people to agree your beliefs make sense, you need to make a case. Evidence is good, when you're making claims about reality. Logic is fine for just the abstract.
Sorry, that made no sense at all. You have unjustified assertions, and a random insertion of an undefined "God".
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: What is wrong with this premise?
February 18, 2015 at 7:10 am
(February 18, 2015 at 7:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure. Everyone can believe whatever they want, it's not a problem and to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. But if you want other people to agree your beliefs make sense, you need to make a case. Evidence is good, when you're making claims about reality. Logic is fine for just the abstract.
Sorry, that made no sense at all.
Remember I said I believe there is much more to reality than we can observe. I believe that the larger reality is self similar to the reality we can observe. Our reality is emergent complex it has always been emergent complex so I assume the larger reality is this way as well. Further, I see no reason to put bounds on emergent complexity.
|
