Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Yeah, well, if there is a beginning it leads to a cause and that leads to a Creator ... this isn't new stuff ken...
The cause of the Big Bang would probably be the singularity. Now if you want to believe the origin of the singularity leads to a creator, that's fine, but that belief is gonna be based upon faith, opinion, assumption, or whatever; but it isn't based upon science; let's not pretend that it is.
Ken
Aristotle and Aquinas disagree. In fact you are only correct under a very narrow definition of science that materialists try to proclaim.
And we believe in God because it is reasonable to do so. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Yeah, well, if there is a beginning it leads to a cause and that leads to a Creator ... this isn't new stuff ken...
The cause of the Big Bang would probably be the singularity. Now if you want to believe the origin of the singularity leads to a creator, that's fine, but that belief is gonna be based upon faith, opinion, assumption, or whatever; but it isn't based upon science; let's not pretend that it is.
Ken
Aristotle and Aquinas disagree.
Yes! They were very religious people
SoCalExile wrote:In fact you are only correct under a very narrow definition of science that materialists try to proclaim.
Modern science proclaims it as well
SoCalExile wrote:And we believe in God because it is reasonable to do so. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
But how do you know the singularity had a beginning?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
thanks very much for the link. I read it and am very pleased you gave it to us.
I've known about dark energy and dark matter for some time. I watch the Universe series on TV and have actually been inspired to read quite a bit too. Isn't it amazing that all we can see, hear, touch-taste-feel, measure... all the variables that encompass our existence... all of it... billions of galaxies, billions upon billions of stars... all of whom may have 1 or more planets around them, comets, asteroids dwarf planets... all of it only comprises 4.6% of the universe. The enormity of it all is astounding. Psalm 19:1
Even the dark matter and energy, although we don't yet understand the complexity of it's components (not baryonic matter !) we still are smart enough to realize it's existence and measure with great accuracy it's density and composition in relation to the universes as a whole...
you guys (scientists) are amazing, and thanks 1/137 again for the primer
Trust the past to God’s mercy, the present to God’s love, and the future to God’s providence. -St Augustine
EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Yeah, well, if there is a beginning it leads to a cause and that leads to a Creator ... this isn't new stuff ken...
The cause of the Big Bang would probably be the singularity. Now if you want to believe the origin of the singularity leads to a creator, that's fine, but that belief is gonna be based upon faith, opinion, assumption, or whatever; but it isn't based upon science; let's not pretend that it is.
Ken
Aristotle and Aquinas disagree.
Yes! They were very religious people
SoCalExile wrote:In fact you are only correct under a very narrow definition of science that materialists try to proclaim.
Modern science proclaims it as well
SoCalExile wrote:And we believe in God because it is reasonable to do so. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
But how do you know the singularity had a beginning?
Ken
to be fair, Aristotle and Plato weren't Jews or Christians, but they were monotheists based on logic. BTW Alexander the Great was also a monotheist, because Aristotle taught him. (Link)
SoCalExile wrote:
By definition, the first cause is God.
That all depends upon your definition of God. Most people define God as an intelligent being. The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being
.
The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.
Trust the past to God’s mercy, the present to God’s love, and the future to God’s providence. -St Augustine
The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being
.
The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.
My problem with the Cosmological argument, unmoved mover argument and all others similar, is it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. it proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is not qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, so it must exist outside it. He then proclaims his God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover.
Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which he will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of his God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being
.
The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.
My problem with the Cosmological argument, unmoved mover argument and all others similar, is it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. it proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is not qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, so it must exist outside it. He then proclaims his God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover.
Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which he will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of his God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!
Ken
You're dangerously close to a science-of-the-gaps argument there
Follow this logic for a moment:
1: The universe is material, and materialistic science has shown it to have a beginning.
2: Having a beginning, it must have a cause.
3: Since the material universe began, it's cause logically cannot be material, but immaterial.
4. Material science, by definition, ignores the immaterial
5. Thus material science cannot study God, only His material creation.
Materialist scientists have been trying to find material evidence for a eternal universe for a long time. Einstein tried to cover up the fact that his research showed it had a beginning. The material evidence is clear.
Last edited by SoCalExile on Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The first cause is not by definition an intelligent being
.
The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.
My problem with the Cosmological argument, unmoved mover argument and all others similar, is it imposes a set of rules it does not apply to itself.
According to what little bit we know about the Universe, the unmoved mover does not exist; it is merely a concept. it proclaims the unmoved mover MUST exist, and presupposes the vast majority of the Universe that we are ignorant of is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we DO know of (a claim nobody is not qualified to make), thus this unmoved mover cannot exist within the Universe, so it must exist outside it. He then proclaims his God exists outside the Universe and is the unmoved mover.
Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover to which he will probably use science to prove it cannot be. The problem with using science this way is the same science that will dismiss the possibility of the Universe being the unmoved mover will also dismiss the possibility of his God even existing let alone being an unmoved mover! In other words, according to science God is a worse explanation than the Universe!
Ken
SoCalExile wrote:* Having a beginning, it must have a cause.
How do you know? You are assuming the vast majority of the Universe we are unfamiliar with is consistent with the tiny percentage of the Universe we are familiar with.
SoCalExile wrote:Since the material universe began, it's cause logically cannot be material, but immaterial.
How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny wrote:
How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create?
Ken
As for the immaterial, Plato logically deduced it's existence, ironically, since logic is itself immaterial.
Take the concept (or essence, in Platonic terms) of triangles. No matter what, three straight lines connected in such a way that the angles where they meet adds up to 180* is a triangle. You cannot have a 4 sided triangle; and renaming a square or circle a triangle doesn't change the essence of what we currently refer to as triangles. Color, the straightness or fuzziness of the lines doesn't change the essence of triangularity. If we erase all the material triangles in the cosmos, it does not eliminate the essence of triangularity, because triangularity is immaterial. The same goes for the essences of logic, intellect, justice, philosophy, etc.
As far as intelligence, Final Causes that we see in nature, the Big Bang/singularly, etc. logically demand it.
Kenny wrote:
How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create?
Ken
As for the immaterial, Plato logically deduced it's existence, ironically, since logic is itself immaterial.
Take the concept (or essence, in Platonic terms) of triangles. No matter what, three straight lines connected in such a way that the angles where they meet adds up to 180* is a triangle. You cannot have a 4 sided triangle; and renaming a square or circle a triangle doesn't change the essence of what we currently refer to as triangles. Color, the straightness or fuzziness of the lines doesn't change the essence of triangularity. If we erase all the material triangles in the cosmos, it does not eliminate the essence of triangularity, because triangularity is immaterial. The same goes for the essences of logic, intellect, justice, philosophy, etc.
As far as intelligence, Final Causes that we see in nature, the Big Bang/singularly, etc. logically demand it.
What happens when one of your perfect certainties dissolves?
Triangles dont always add up as you so confidently assert.
Kenny wrote:
How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create?
Ken
As for the immaterial, Plato logically deduced it's existence, ironically, since logic is itself immaterial.
Take the concept (or essence, in Platonic terms) of triangles. No matter what, three straight lines connected in such a way that the angles where they meet adds up to 180* is a triangle. You cannot have a 4 sided triangle; and renaming a square or circle a triangle doesn't change the essence of what we currently refer to as triangles. Color, the straightness or fuzziness of the lines doesn't change the essence of triangularity. If we erase all the material triangles in the cosmos, it does not eliminate the essence of triangularity, because triangularity is immaterial. The same goes for the essences of logic, intellect, justice, philosophy, etc.
As far as intelligence, Final Causes that we see in nature, the Big Bang/singularly, etc. logically demand it.
What happens when one of your perfect certainties dissolves?
Triangles dont always add up as you so confidently assert.
Does "same goes for..." still apply?
Audie,
Are you saying that the angles in a triangle don't always add up to 180 degrees, as SoCal said?
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Kenny wrote:
How do you know immaterial exist? Let alone having the ability to create?
Ken
As for the immaterial, Plato logically deduced it's existence, ironically, since logic is itself immaterial.
Take the concept (or essence, in Platonic terms) of triangles. No matter what, three straight lines connected in such a way that the angles where they meet adds up to 180* is a triangle. You cannot have a 4 sided triangle; and renaming a square or circle a triangle doesn't change the essence of what we currently refer to as triangles. Color, the straightness or fuzziness of the lines doesn't change the essence of triangularity. If we erase all the material triangles in the cosmos, it does not eliminate the essence of triangularity, because triangularity is immaterial. The same goes for the essences of logic, intellect, justice, philosophy, etc.
As far as intelligence, Final Causes that we see in nature, the Big Bang/singularly, etc. logically demand it.
What happens when one of your perfect certainties dissolves?
Triangles dont always add up as you so confidently assert.
Does "same goes for..." still apply?
Audie,
Are you saying that the angles in a triangle don't always add up to 180 degrees, as SoCal said?
It's a dishonest counter-example, Rick, insofar as it attempts to deny "perfect certainties." Little more than a four-term-fallacy.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
and have actually been inspired to read quite a bit too. Isn't it amazing that all we can see, hear, touch-taste-feel, measure... all the variables that encompass our existence... all of it... billions of galaxies, billions upon billions of stars... all of whom may have 1 or more planets around them, comets, asteroids dwarf planets... all of it only comprises 4.6% of the universe. The enormity of it all is astounding. Psalm 19:1
