Is there objective Truth?

[Soldat Du Christ]

""to set it all in motion"? Who says it hasn't been in motion since forever?
How do you know?"

Anybody who is still stuck on this, you need to get with the times.
"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning" -Vilenkin

"Everything only applies to what we observe (as far as we know)"

So you agree with me?

"Wasn't it Thomas Aquinas that first put this "uncaused cause" into writing? He didn't even know about the big-bang! Kudos to him! But... still wrong!"

The big bang doesn't prove anything in that regard, all it does is confirm there was a begining. Anything before that is theory. Any attempt at a material explanation is self deafeating. Only a supernatural cause is plausable.

---

Hey you never PMed me back :\

[downbeatplumb]

""to set it all in motion"? Who says it hasn't been in motion since forever?
How do you know?"

Anybody who is still stuck on this, you need to get with the times.
"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning" -Vilenkin

"Everything only applies to what we observe (as far as we know)"

You need to get with the times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-MT4mIyqc0

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Hello, Soldat Du Christ.  First off, I wanted to give you some kudos for persevering through this thread.  It is not an easy feat to do what you are doing here (it reminds me of a chessmaster playing simultaneous games).  With that said, I have some questions for you.  To be clear, by asking these questions, I'm not looking to argue or engage in a high school debate; however, I'm very interested in learning your perspective on these matters. 

 

At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion

IMO, the above statement uses human rationality to make sense of what caused everything to begin.  However, does reality operate in strict accordance with a humanistic mindset? Could there be other ways to make sense of reality that we just haven't stumbled upon yet?

The big bang doesn't prove anything in that regard, all it does is confirm there was a begining. Anything before that is theory. Any attempt at a material explanation is self defeating. Only a supernatural cause is plausable.

Why does this have to be attributed to a supernatural cause? Why can't it be some different way of operating that we just don't know about or are currently too limited to understand?

[Soldat Du Christ]

Hello, Soldat Du Christ.  First off, I wanted to give you some kudos for persevering through this thread.  It is not an easy feat to do what you are doing here (it reminds me of a chessmaster playing simultaneous games).  With that said, I have some questions for you.  To be clear, by asking these questions, I'm not looking to argue or engage in a high school debate; however, I'm very interested in learning your perspective on these matters. 

Thanks man. Not sure if you saw my introduction thread, but contrary to what you might expect from sombody staking there evangelical claim on a atheism forum, i'm actualy here to learn. And so far i have learned alot it's been a very fruitfull endevor these past few days! My second motive is to see if there are any holes in theistic epistimology. Yes i'm serious! In all my studies i've yet to find a satisfactory refutation, all the while find plenty of holes in the contrary.

 

At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion

IMO, the above statement uses human rationality to make sense of what caused everything to begin.  However, does reality operate in strict accordance with a humanistic mindset? Could there be other ways to make sense of reality that we just haven't stumbled upon yet?

I agree, it requires human rationality to make sense of anything. From my world view, Rationality, logic, immaterial laws, all come from the creator, as a result all of creation are under the same laws. From the opposing view (Order out if chaos) i can see how one could end up in the position of questioning there own ability to reason these things out with confidence. That is a major flaw, trying to justify the brain using the brain. Incabable of doing so, it only follows to retreat to uncertainty. This is NOT a sane, nor a reasonable way to live. But people will at the end of the day believe what they want to

The big bang doesn't prove anything in that regard, all it does is confirm there was a begining. Anything before that is theory. Any attempt at a material explanation is self defeating. Only a supernatural cause is plausable.

Why does this have to be attributed to a supernatural cause? Why can't it be some different way of operating that we just don't know about or are currently too limited to understand?

There are only two possible answers to this problem. Either matter made mind, or mind made matter. Supernatural cause, or natural cause. All theory will fall into either of these catagories would you agree? Now, any attempts at explaining this start through natural means simply doesn't fly.

Nothing follows from nothing. Okay... So maybe it was a bunch of math floating around? Well then that isn't "nothing". And you are only following down a path of infinite cause and effect.

[Arkilogue]

The creator is the source of objectivity.

Do you think the creator is an object? (has mass)

[Arkilogue]

The Prime Mover and First Cause demonstrations take no stand with respect to whether the physical universe had a beginning or if it is eternal. The idea that the Big-Bang justifies either demonstration is a modern misconception.

Secondly, the debate takes for granted a modern notion of causality that has become problematic, i.e. that cause-effect relationships are based solely on temporally successive events. Just as embodied objects appear solid, but are not actually so, the idea of prior events are the 'cause' of later 'effects' creates an infinite regress of intermediate causes.

We have also been "lied" to every time we've been shown the big bang on screen. There is no blank space outside the singularity and it's not "infinitesimally small". It contains all space-time and matter....it has no border.

There is time and space before the inflation of the universe only it's filled to the brimming with mass. No void space...all saturated space.

The inflation of the universe is the beginning of our time, our time down here....that's all over the second we ride up Troys bucket...

[Soldat Du Christ]

The creator is the source of objectivity.

Do you think the creator is an object? (has mass)

The uncaused first cause brought forth mass, so no. Similerly, time and space cannot.

---

The Prime Mover and First Cause demonstrations take no stand with respect to whether the physical universe had a beginning or if it is eternal. The idea that the Big-Bang justifies either demonstration is a modern misconception.

Secondly, the debate takes for granted a modern notion of causality that has become problematic, i.e. that cause-effect relationships are based solely on temporally successive events. Just as embodied objects appear solid, but are not actually so, the idea of prior events are the 'cause' of later 'effects' creates an infinite regress of intermediate causes.

We have also been "lied" to every time we've been shown the big bang on screen. There is no blank space outside the singularity and it's not "infinitesimally small". It contains all space-time and matter....it has no border.

There is time and space before the inflation of the universe only it's filled to the brimming with mass. No void space...all saturated space.

The inflation of the universe is the beginning of our time, our time down here....that's all over the second we ride up Troys bucket...

What caused that?

[Arkilogue]

Do you think the creator is an object? (has mass)

The uncaused first cause brought forth mass, so no. Similerly, time and space cannot.

---

We have also been "lied" to every time we've been shown the big bang on screen.  There is no blank space outside the singularity and it's not "infinitesimally small".  It contains all space-time and matter....it has no border.

There is time and space before the inflation of the universe only it's filled to the brimming with mass.  No void space...all saturated space.

The inflation of the universe is the beginning of our time, our time down here....that's all over the second we ride up Troys bucket...

What caused that?

So against the first law of thermodynamics, you believe that mass and energy were brought into being out of nothing?

Caused what, the prior to inflation existence of substance/mass/matter or the inflation event of relative space?

[Soldat Du Christ]

The uncaused first cause brought forth mass, so no. Similerly, time and space cannot.

---

What caused that?

So against the first law of thermodynamics, you believe that mass and energy were brought into being out of nothing?

Caused what, the prior to inflation existence of substance/mass/matter or the inflation event of relative space?

I don't know exactly HOW the God created everything, just like you don't. It's all theory.

We know it would have to be simutaniously, the bible accounts for this...

In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

[Arkilogue]

So against the first law of thermodynamics, you believe that mass and energy were brought into being out of nothing?

Caused what, the prior to inflation existence of substance/mass/matter or the inflation event of relative space?

I don't know exactly HOW the God created everything, just like you don't. It's all theory.

We know it would have to be simutaniously, the bible accounts for this...

In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

Some theories are better than others...like one's that use known science and have far greater predictive power + much less special pleading.


And nothing for nothing but....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew.

She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".
The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"

Also the Hebrew word used for God in Gen 1:1 is "Elohim" and that is plural.



Also, are you at all familiar with the Ain Soph Aur and the Tzimtzum of the ancient Judiac creation story?