Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 21, 2024, 3:43 pm
Thread Rating:
Eternal the originator of time - proof.
|
No one wants to address the argument in the opening post it seems.
(April 11, 2015 at 7:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: No one wants to address the argument in the opening post it seems. I have. It is not established that a cause is required
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
RE: Eternal the originator of time - proof.
April 11, 2015 at 8:01 pm
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2015 at 8:07 pm by Iroscato.)
So I'm gonna type this rubbing my temple in a futile attempt at soothing the pulsating vein there. I'm also going to spell it out very clearly and concisely, as this is about the trillionth time I've seen this turd of a statement in a different dress.
Who. Made. The. Creator? If it exists, it must have come from somewhere. That which has intelligence must also have origin. And please, please don't say he exists outside of time and space, because that absolutely does not address the problem in any way. He must have had a beginning, or a time when he was at a lesser form than that which he is now. Is he perhaps a being from another universe, who has learned the art of making universes? That could go...some small distance towards making the argument even the tiniest bit feasible, astounding logical leaps needed aside. Where did this hypothetical creator come from? C'mon, let's hash this out, on this day, on this forum, once and for all. If you have any serious concerns, are being harassed, or just need someone to talk to, feel free to contact me via PM (April 11, 2015 at 8:03 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:(April 11, 2015 at 7:57 pm)Alex K Wrote: I have. It is not established that a cause is required Wasn't "effect needs cause" a premise? If not then what is your argument exactly. It's confusingly written because there are several paragraphs and I don't understand how they relate
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
RE: Eternal the originator of time - proof.
April 11, 2015 at 8:22 pm
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2015 at 8:23 pm by Mystic.)
(April 11, 2015 at 8:19 pm)Alex K Wrote:That was one part of the argument. But the conclusion doesn't rely on it. Because there is two parts to initial part of the argument. One then talks about effect and cause. The other part talks about time and it's limited nature. Then the conclusions follow from there. (ie. the first point of time came into being, ie time came into being).(April 11, 2015 at 8:03 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: That's attacking the conclusion, not the argument. Try again. So you are saying effects don't require a cause?
I think quantum mechanics heavily blurs the line between effects and causes, wouldn't you say so Alex? (Psst, agree with me!)
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum RE: Eternal the originator of time - proof.
April 11, 2015 at 8:29 pm
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2015 at 9:29 pm by bennyboy.)
What you have done is said "Existence represents an infinite regression, which is paradoxical. Therefore, we need a philosophical quantity, X, which solves this paradox."
The problem is that you insist X must be separate from whatever exists. However, there is now a new system: "whatever exists + X," and you anyway need to explain how this new system originated. You will need an infinite regression of Gods. There is a debating term that exactly defines what you are doing: special pleading. This is your argument: "Everything must be created, so it must all have been created by something which does not need to be created." So your first thesis: "everything must be created" is falsified, since you are allowing (asserting, actually) that at least one thing doesn't need to be created, and so you NO LONGER NEED to invent a new entity. You can just say, for example, "Every cause needs in turn another cause. Therefore the universe must have existed forever." No new quantity X required. (April 11, 2015 at 8:23 pm)robvalue Wrote: I think quantum mechanics heavily blurs the line between effects and causes, wouldn't you say so Alex? (Psst, agree with me!) Even if I were to concede for the sake of argument, than on smaller scale, effects occur without a cause (instead of saying these causes are yet unknown by science), still the over all effects in endless universe, all requires a cause, therefore the argument can be modified and seen in this light, and it would show the universe is not of infinite chain of cause and effects still. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Eternal Return | viocjit | 16 | 1833 |
September 22, 2020 at 9:59 am Last Post: Mister Agenda |
|
Is the soul eternal | tackattack | 53 | 16955 |
October 9, 2010 at 3:02 am Last Post: Anomalocaris |
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)