Is Christianity and Belief in God RATIONAL?

[RickD]

If it always has existed would that mean that it needs nothing to keep it existing?

If only one, I would assume so; if multiple, I would consider the possibility that they may be depended upon each other.

Kenny,

As Byblos explained to you before, there cannot be more than one uncaused cause.

Here's the thread:
viewtopic.php?p=166030#p166030

I actually looked over the entire thread. Yeah he tried to explain why there can’t be more than one uncaused cause, but IMO he didn’t do a very good job of it. He made a bunch of claims that weren’t backed up, then everybody and their mother jumped into the conversation and everything went off topic and we spent most of the thread talking and arguing about something else. Eventually everybody gave up and quit responding and the original claim was never answered to my satisfaction.

Byblos explained it in the post I linked. I will quote him here:

Byblos wrote:
The reason is very simple and very logical (and I and Jac have stated it many timers before, in this thread and others). But it keeps coming up again and again so I guess it's worth repeating.

First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal), immaterial (not composed of matter), and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

Now if there were more than one pure actuality then there must be some way to distingwish them. And if there were a way to distingwish them then there must be something that one of them lacks and the other one doesn't. But if one of them lacks something it would then be contingent, depending on another for the feature it lacks and therefore would not be pure actuality.

But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.

The above explanation is explained logically, and sufficiently. If you disagree with something specific in what he said, you can ask, and maybe someone will be able to explain it to you.

It's not an easy topic to understand, although the logic itself is quite simple.

[Kenny]

If it always has existed would that mean that it needs nothing to keep it existing?

If only one, I would assume so; if multiple, I would consider the possibility that they may be depended upon each other.

Kenny,

As Byblos explained to you before, there cannot be more than one uncaused cause.

Here's the thread:
viewtopic.php?p=166030#p166030

I actually looked over the entire thread. Yeah he tried to explain why there can’t be more than one uncaused cause, but IMO he didn’t do a very good job of it. He made a bunch of claims that weren’t backed up, then everybody and their mother jumped into the conversation and everything went off topic and we spent most of the thread talking and arguing about something else. Eventually everybody gave up and quit responding and the original claim was never answered to my satisfaction.

Byblos explained it in the post I linked. I will quote him here:

Byblos wrote:
The reason is very simple and very logical (and I and Jac have stated it many timers before, in this thread and others). But it keeps coming up again and again so I guess it's worth repeating.

First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal), immaterial (not composed of matter), and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

Now if there were more than one pure actuality then there must be some way to distingwish them. And if there were a way to distingwish them then there must be something that one of them lacks and the other one doesn't. But if one of them lacks something it would then be contingent, depending on another for the feature it lacks and therefore would not be pure actuality.

But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.

The above explanation is explained logically, and sufficiently. If you disagree with something specific in what he said, you can ask, and maybe someone will be able to explain it to you.

It's not an easy topic to understand, although the logic itself is quite simple.

Byblos said:
The reason is very simple and very logical (and I and Jac have stated it many timers before, in this thread and others). But it keeps coming up again and again so I guess it's worth repeating.

First some background review: From reason alone we can deduce that the uncaused cause must be atemporal (i.e. eternal),

Reply
No disagreement here

(Byblos)
immaterial (not composed of matter),

Reply
This one he never answered; why can’t something composed of matter be the uncaused cause?

(Byblos)
and immutable (unchanging, i.e. asbsolutely necessary without any contingencies whatsover (pure actuality), for if it were contingent it would then be dependent on another and therefore not the first uncaused cause and not pure actuality).

Reply
Why can’t energy and matter be in a constant state of change, yet still be eternal?

(Byblos)
Now if there were more than one pure actuality then there must be some way to distingwish them. And if there were a way to distingwish them then there must be something that one of them lacks and the other one doesn't. But if one of them lacks something it would then be contingent, depending on another for the feature it lacks and therefore would not be pure actuality.

Reply
Here he suggests something eternal must possess everything; If there are multiple things eternal it isn’t necessary for them to each possess everything.


(Byblos)
But if there were two of them that are absolutely identical without any distingwishing features then they would be one and the same and cannot be two. Therefore pure actuality (or the uncaused cause or the unmoved prime mover) must be one and only one.

Reply
See above

[PaulSacramento]

If it always has existed would that mean that it needs nothing to keep it existing?

If only one, I would assume so; if multiple, I would consider the possibility that they may be depended upon each other.

Then they wouldn't be uncaused would they? they would need to be dependent on each other.
Unless, of course, by each other you mean ONE THING that is comprised of "other things" ?

[PaulSacramento]

Reply
This one he never answered; why can’t something composed of matter be the uncaused cause?

All matter is comprised ( and limited to) what it IS and what it CAN be ( Actuality and potentiality) which means that it would "need" something other than itself to allow it to go from what it IS to what it CAN BE, agreed?

[Kenny]

If it always has existed would that mean that it needs nothing to keep it existing?

If only one, I would assume so; if multiple, I would consider the possibility that they may be depended upon each other.

Then they wouldn't be uncaused would they? they would need to be dependent on each other.
Unless, of course, by each other you mean ONE THING that is comprised of "other things" ?

Okay I see where you're getting at. If that's the case, if there are multiple different things that are eternal, they don't need to be uncaused cause; right?

[Kenny]

Reply
This one he never answered; why can’t something composed of matter be the uncaused cause?

All matter is comprised ( and limited to) what it IS and what it CAN be ( Actuality and potentiality) which means that it would "need" something other than itself to allow it to go from what it IS to what it CAN BE, agreed?

I would consider the possibility that it could be in a constant state of change. I don't know enough about the material world to be so certain of what is possible when it comes to matter

[PaulSacramento]

It's important to understand that we can't really separate the uncaused cause and the unmoved mover argument, they are basically one in the same.
I mean that they lead to each other.
Unless, of course, you are ok with infinite regression or "brute facts" that don't explain anything.

The uncaused cause/unmoved mover can't be material because something material IS LIMITED ( to the material state of course), which means it must have either been caused OR requires something else to "move it" ( cause change).

[Kenny]

The uncaused cause/unmoved mover can't be material because something material IS LIMITED ( to the material state of course), which means it must have either been caused OR requires something else to "move it" ( cause change).

But if there are multiple different types of matter (solids, liquids, plasma, gas, etc. etc.) and multiple types of energy (Kinetic, thermal, Nuclear, etc. etc.) that are all acting on each other causing change, why can’t that be eternal?

[RickD]

The uncaused cause/unmoved mover can't be material because something material IS LIMITED ( to the material state of course), which means it must have either been caused OR requires something else to "move it" ( cause change).

But if there are multiple different types of matter (solids, liquids, plasma, gas, etc. etc.) and multiple types of energy (Kinetic, thermal, Nuclear, etc. etc.) that are all acting on each other causing change, why can’t that be eternal?

Let's say for the sake of discussion, that they are eternal, in the sense that they have always existed. Are they contingent? In other words, are these things dependent on something, causing them to act?

[Kenny]

The uncaused cause/unmoved mover can't be material because something material IS LIMITED ( to the material state of course), which means it must have either been caused OR requires something else to "move it" ( cause change).

But if there are multiple different types of matter (solids, liquids, plasma, gas, etc. etc.) and multiple types of energy (Kinetic, thermal, Nuclear, etc. etc.) that are all acting on each other causing change, why can’t that be eternal?

Let's say for the sake of discussion, that they are eternal, in the sense that they have always existed. Are they contingent? In other words, are these things dependent on something, causing them to act?

Yeah; they are all dependent upon each other.

[Philip]

What Big Bang cosmology reveals is, a mere moment before the Big Bang began, there was NOTHING physical in existence! And in under 3 minutes, extraordinary things of stunning designs immediately appeared, including elementary particles, anti-matter, matter, neutrinos, protons, neutrons, and electrons, and the nucleosynthesis process began. So, notice that not just random, unnecessary things burst forth, but exactly the critical things with designs and functionalities necessary to build a universe. And these incredible things must have been planned, selected, designed and ORCHESTRATED! So, these amaging first things dIdn't merely appear, as they instantly began cross interdependencies and synchronization of individual and collective interactions of astonishing complexity, which requires INTELLIGENCE beyond what we can understand! So, it's not just a question whether eternal, random things might exist, but that they had these incredible designs, individually and collectively, and perfectly and instantly, began interacting in stupendpous harmony and on a scale we can't imagine. Thus showing an intelligent selection, awesome designs and orchestration of purpose that all that currently exists is dependent upon. So, the ETERNAL Source of the universe ALSO required a massive Intelligence of untold power that intelligently designed and orchestrated the universe's beginning. Merely having random things, even if eternal, could not explain what came into existence, nor its designs, interfunctionalities, or obvious trajectories of purpose, as these many astonishing things point to the Intelligence they all required.

[Kenny]

What Big Bang cosmology reveals is, a mere moment before the Big Bang began, there was NOTHING physical in existence! And in under 3 minutes, extraordinary things of stunning designs immediately appeared, including elementary particles, anti-matter, matter, neutrinos, protons, neutrons, and electrons, and the nucleosynthesis process began.

I have never heard of anything scientific that supports this claim. From what I've heard as far back as science can go is to the singularity that expanded to become what is known as the big bang. Do you have anything other than your word to back any of this up?

[RickD]

What Big Bang cosmology reveals is, a mere moment before the Big Bang began, there was NOTHING physical in existence! And in under 3 minutes, extraordinary things of stunning designs immediately appeared, including elementary particles, anti-matter, matter, neutrinos, protons, neutrons, and electrons, and the nucleosynthesis process began.

I have never heard of anything scientific that supports this claim. From what I've heard as far back as science can go is to the singularity that expanded to become what is known as the big bang. Do you have anything other than your word to back any of this up?

Kenny,

In the Big Bang Theory, all matter was formed as a result of the Big Bang itself. This isn't even controversial.

[Kenny]

What Big Bang cosmology reveals is, a mere moment before the Big Bang began, there was NOTHING physical in existence! And in under 3 minutes, extraordinary things of stunning designs immediately appeared, including elementary particles, anti-matter, matter, neutrinos, protons, neutrons, and electrons, and the nucleosynthesis process began.

I have never heard of anything scientific that supports this claim. From what I've heard as far back as science can go is to the singularity that expanded to become what is known as the big bang. Do you have anything other than your word to back any of this up?

Kenny,

In the Big Bang Theory, all matter was formed as a result of the Big Bang itself. This isn't even controversial.

No; The Big Bang theory starts with the singularity (all matter in existence) already existing. When that singularity/matter expanded to become what we now know as the Universe, this is known as the Big Bang theory. What happened prior to this event is completely unknown and a matter of pure speculation.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
https://www.quora.com/What-was-before-t ... simple-way

[abelcainsbrother]

One thing I have noticed about the online atheists on youtube,etc is that they are not interested in the Big bang Theory evethough it is a real scientific theory,instead they go on scientific hypotheses's that are not scientific theories like multi-verses,etc. They do this because of atheists scientists like Sean Carroll,Lawrence Krauss,etc who bring these scientific hypothesis's up next to the Big Bang Theory as if they are equivalant. Everytime the Big Bang comes up they bring up these scentific hypothesis's that confuse people.This is what happens when William Lane Craig debates Sean Carroll,etc. They bring up these scientific hypothesis's up that are not scientific theories but they bring them up anyway as possibilities anytime the Big Bang Theory comes up.They don't tell you and explain like Hugh Ross does and has predicted correctly for years that the evidence for the Big bang is only getting stronger as time goes on. No! instead they confuse people about science by propping up scientific hypothesis's up next to the Big Bang Theory like they are equivalent to the Big Bang and possibilities. This is why the Big Bang Theory seems to have no effect on atheists.They are focused on scientific hypothesis's instead of a real scientific theory.