The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Angrboda]

[Nishant Xavier]

@Angrboda

This is from the AMNH: "The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery."

Those who know the Principle of Contingent Causation, the First Cause Argument etc know the answer to that question. That the universe began is dead certain. That it is therefore contingent, non-eternal and non-necessary necessarily follows. It remains that B1 in the OP is not the Universe, but the First Cause of the Universe. B2 can be the Universe, B2 being contingent, as are all Bn, for n>=2, but B1 itself is the First Cause of the Universe, Eternal and Non-Contingent, God, dependent on no Prior Being B0.

Grand Nudger, we'll come back to history etc in a minute, but pls note Reinhard Bonnke was born in 1940, began CFAN in 1975, so this was well after the colonial period ended. There are even You Tube videos of healing miracles going on right now in Africa through CFAN Ministry under Kolenda's leadership. Research it if you want.

As for Prayer, well, if you want something from God, including, on topic, to be sufficiently convinced of His Existence, either from (1) Pure Reason, or from (2) Personal Experience, or in any other way, all you need to do is ask, and ask sincerely and perseveringly. Something like: "Lord, if you really exist, give me solid and sufficient evidence of Your Existence, and I promise in turn to believe in and follow you, to gain Eternal Happiness/Eternal Life in Heaven. In Lord Jesus' Name. Amen". If you pray a simple prayer like that, and really mean it, I daresay God will supply the answer, in His own good time, by means of someone or something or the other.

Your claim that, because I believe in answered prayers and healing miracles, therefore, I don't believe in Pure Reason and Philosophical Arguments, is a Non Sequitur. It's a case of Both/And, not Either/Or here.

What I really believe is, man is too blind to the possible reality of Eternal Happiness that he doesn't understand its Inestimable and Immeasurable Value. If even the credible possibility of such Happiness existed, he ought to do everything in his power to investigate and research whether it really existed and how it was possible to attain it. People fall over themselves for the opportunity to become Rich Investment Bankers (as we know through the number of applications we receive, lol), and also fall over themselves, after that, for a 2 week vacation, after 50 weeks of hard work. Fine. All that will give some temporal happiness, admitted. But Eternal Happiness is such a Great Good that only a God of Perfect Goodness could even promise it, for even the hope and confident expectation of it gives great peace and joy. That's what Religion can offer the world, which many today have forgotten. And since Christianity, Catholic Christianity especially, makes the attainment of Eternal Happiness contingent upon Good Works, as Jesus Christ teaches in Mat 25, then Christianity greatly promotes both Eternal and temporal happiness and all that leads to it.

As for: "I can't give you an example of any consistently monotheistic religion from 2000bc to christ time", yes, that's the point. There wasn't any, especially not one that made the Commandment, there is only One Almighty God, and no other god beside Him, the First Commandment of all.

As I said, the Greek Church Fathers knew that this knowledge couldn't have been attained by the Hebrew Prophets naturally, because their own Great Philosophers had just begun establishing and proving it very recently. They thus knew it had come about through Supernatural Revelation.

God Bless,
Xavier.

[Kitan Etos]

A typically childish way for a believer to maintain adherence to the religious lie is to make the erroneous claim that non-believers want to be blind to the truth.

That others don't want to believe is not an argument for reality or existence. It's just another claim from ignorance.

[awty]

Seems to me that NX's plan is to out talk us with walls 'o text.

[Angrboda]

[Angrboda]

What I really believe is, man is too blind to the possible reality of Eternal Happiness that he doesn't understand its Inestimable and Immeasurable Value.

So, now you're saying that actual infinities can exist? Weren't you just yesterday arguing the exact opposite?

[Bucky Ball]

The Augustino-Thomistic Argument from Contingency and Necessity provides Basic Foundational Evidence for the Existence of Almighty God. ... etc. 

No it doesn't. Not even one tiny bit. 
The "principles" (which Augustine and Aquinas got wrong) as they knew no modern science, are founded on incorrect assumptions. 
One example is that Aquinas assumes that the natural state of matter was "rest". We know that to be totally incorrect.
One among many is, that the environment of "god" exists in, is the same as is present in this universe. 
You (and they) have no evidence of anything in reality, or that it follows the rules you happen to observe in 5 % of this universe. 
95 % of this universe (Dark Matter and Dark Energy) is unknown, and you and they know and knew nothing about what it is or how it acts. 
You cannot statistically project what Reality is, based on 5 % of one tiny segment of Reality, ONLY here, and you know nothing about Reality (if) where your god exists. (And furthermore, if anything is "necessary" for a deity, then that deity is not master of Reality, and is subject to it .... therefore not a master of anything). Where did the Reality come from that makes it "necessary" ? A deity which "exists" does not, "not exist" and therefore since it's inception (or "eternal existence" was only a partial element in reality, and the question remains ... "Where did Reality come from" ... in which your god is only a part ?" 
Tell your teachers in your Catholic college you want your money back.

Edit to add : I was once in a famous monastery's library, reading Aquinas' "Compendium of Theology", (in Latin), and I laughed out loud, when coming on his statement
that the reason the tempter went to Eve first, (before Adam) was that the "light of reason shone less brightly in her". Women are dumb, according to Tommy Aquinas.
I got "shushed". LOL

[Bucky Ball]

This is from the AMNH: "The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery."

The Big Bang Theory say nothing about the beginning of anything. 

The "bang" was the expansionary epoch. 
The theory says that *something* at very high density and temperature "banged". 
*Nothing* is not at very high temperature and density. Something was already there, and in a certain described physical state. 
The actual theory says nothing about a "beginning" of anything. 
Fundy Christians have MISCHARACTERIZED the theory to serve their own ends. 
The first question is not what caused the ecpansion, not the "explosion", but what was at high temperature and density that expanded. 
Sorry. Try harder.

[Nishant Xavier]

Angrboda. Did you watch your own video? Around 20-30 seconds, Dr. Lincoln says: "the Big Bang, which is the Beginning of the Universe itself". Lol. And again, the description in the video: "The Big Bang is the term that scientists use to describe the beginning of the universe. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln clears up many common misconceptions about this fascinating topic."

This is from Alexander Villenkin: "Loosely speaking, our theorem states that if the universe is, on average, expanding, then its history cannot be indefinitely continued into the past." He also wrote: "the answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed ... my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God"

Look, I get that you don't like the clearly Theistic implications of the Universe's having a Beginning. Even those who are Neutral or Undecided on the particular question of God's Existence quite openly say that the Universe had a Beginning is quite certain. The Big Bang is a Theory first proposed by a devout and highly learned Catholic Priest, a Master of Science, Fr. Georges Lemaitre; it was criticized in the early days by those who believed it was a Creation Theory. Ultimately, it essentially is one, as Physicists are discovering more and more.

You, Angrboda, are conflating or misunderstanding two things (1) Given the current state of physics, our measurements break down at around an infinitesimal time after the Big Bang, and (2) We cannot therefore, allegedly, know the Universe had a beginning. Your conflation of the 2, or your allegation that 2 is a necessary consequence of 1, is a simple non sequitur on your part.

Physicists reason like this, as the above excerpt also shows: (1) the universe is constantly expanding, (2) extrapolating backward, said expansion could not have been indefinitely continued in the past (3) Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Planck time, etc, is irrelevant to this conclusion.

Since Eternal Happiness is not formed by successive addition, nor is it a collection like an alleged infinite number of balls, that's another non sequitur. Rather, it's a Spiritual State of Perfect Bliss, that comes from God's Free Choice to allow us to participate in His Divine Presence in Heaven.

Bucky, I didn't study in a Catholic College, I studied in a Secular One, NIT, Trichy, the best Engineering Institutes in India after the IIT's. I did Engg. in Undergrad, and Mgmt in Post-Graduation, quite a common combination in B-School. Anyway, some don't like the implication that the observed Expansion of the Universe cannot be continued indefinitely in the past, which itself is like the Thomistic Argument; so they try to evade the conclusion. Other Astronomers and Physicists say it quite explicitly and openly, yes, the Universe had a beginning, and is not infinite in the past

[Kitan Etos]

Inserting science into religion is like attempting to force incompatible puzzle pieces together.