Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
I didnt know about the refutation of Quinque Viae because I've only skimmed it (and couldn't understand it because the translation style was hard) and never got through the entire thing. This just popped into my head one late night.
OK, but it's basically the same argument, and was refuted many times. If you are really interested in the argument, you'll find it anticipated in Thomas Aquinas (who stole it from Aristotle) and a complete refutation in Bertrand Russell with a lot of antecedents and also some mathematical thinking. I'm only giving you the information here, not debating. You'll find some resumes here and there, like this one from Pablo Flores:
The first two Ways are more or less the same: they are based on the fact that there's no effect without cause; nothing starts to move unless something else pushes it. When applied to the universe, this becomes the kaläm cosmological argument:
1. Whatever begins has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Again, this is all very nice, but it falls apart if one looks closer. Premise 1 is true of all things within the universe, but we don't know if it holds for the universe itself (which is everything, by definition). Premise 2 is controversial; St. Augustine himself said that God created the universe with time, not in time, and our current understanding says that all energy, matter and time (the four-dimensional space-time, or maybe the 10- or 26-dimensional manifold proposed by string theory) "began" together. (I place "began" in quotes because it's absurd to talk about beginnings or endings when there's no time!) Either created by God or by itself, the universe did not "begin". The work of Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time) suggests that the universe is finite but has no border -- like the bidimensional surface of a sphere, or our Earth. Anyway, if the universe didn't "begin", premise number 1 is irrelevant...
...But I think it's much better to read the philosophers in their own words.
Just do a google for Einstein's universe rather than Newton's. Basically, the current theory is that there is no such thing as gravity and objects move along the easiest space-time path, which is affected by mass.
I didnt know about the refutation of Quinque Viae because I've only skimmed it (and couldn't understand it because the translation style was hard) and never got through the entire thing. This just popped into my head one late night.
OK, but it's basically the same argument, and was refuted many times. If you are really interested in the argument, you'll find it anticipated in Thomas Aquinas (who stole it from Aristotle) and a complete refutation in Bertrand Russell with a lot of antecedents and also some mathematical thinking. I'm only giving you the information here, not debating. You'll find some resumes here and there, like this one from Pablo Flores:
The first two Ways are more or less the same: they are based on the fact that there's no effect without cause; nothing starts to move unless something else pushes it. When applied to the universe, this becomes the kaläm cosmological argument:
1. Whatever begins has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Again, this is all very nice, but it falls apart if one looks closer. Premise 1 is true of all things within the universe, but we don't know if it holds for the universe itself (which is everything, by definition). Premise 2 is controversial; St. Augustine himself said that God created the universe with time, not in time, and our current understanding says that all energy, matter and time (the four-dimensional space-time, or maybe the 10- or 26-dimensional manifold proposed by string theory) "began" together. (I place "began" in quotes because it's absurd to talk about beginnings or endings when there's no time!) Either created by God or by itself, the universe did not "begin". The work of Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time) suggests that the universe is finite but has no border -- like the bidimensional surface of a sphere, or our Earth. Anyway, if the universe didn't "begin", premise number 1 is irrelevant...
...But I think it's much better to read the philosophers in their own words.
Here's an analogy: Let's liken the universe to a computer program.
The computer program exists within the computer (which is the 'supernatural'). The program only exists when it is executed and never before.
Now let's say this computer program has a system of measurement of duration that we will call 'time'. If we are to use this sytem, which exists only within the program, to determine if the program had a beginning or not, we will fail. That is because this system only begins when the program begins.
Therefore, it is better to use the time measurement of the computer (system time) to determine if the program started or not. This is because this time is not limited by the program.
This brings us to the conclusion that:
The supernatural has the property we call time, however it transcends the universe and the time of the universe exists within it. It is valid to say the universe began because there was a point in supernatural time when it didn't exist, and then the next moment it did exist. It is absurd to talk about the universe beginning when attempting to use the universe's time, however it is valid when the supernatural itself has a time dimension.
Those people who "refuted the argument" didn't understand fundamental things about YHWH much like all atheists and as such there arguments are borderline stupid.
atheist wrote:OK, but it's basically the same argument, and was refuted many times. If you are really interested in the argument, you'll find it anticipated in Thomas Aquinas (who stole it from Aristotle) and a complete refutation in Bertrand Russell with a lot of antecedents and also some mathematical thinking.
...
But I think it's much better to read the philosophers in their own words.
I've read philosophers in their own words, and it seems pretty amazing many are turning into theists in this current day. I'm sure the future will hold many more and eventually theism will be the mainstream belief once again. Time will tell...
It is also quite easy to simply say so and so's argument has been refuted without delving into the specific. There is a phrase for this... I believe it is calling "copping out"? If you knew anything about philosophy you'd see both sides generally go on and on forever back and forth. Noone wins. It is up to the person reading the exchanges to decide which sounds more likely to them.
Furthermore, a response to the question about where God came from, which appears to have been persuasively argued by Russel (to some), can be found at http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=58. There are many responses to Russel, and your lack of knowledge about them seems telling so I wouldn't try assuming some sort of higher intellectual ground than others here.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Furthermore, a response to the question about where God came from, which appears to have been persuasively argued by Russel (to some), can be found at http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=58. There are many responses to Russel, and your lack of knowledge about them seems telling so I wouldn't try assuming some sort of higher intellectual ground than others here.
Tell me, Kurieuo, if you already knew about this section you mention, why didn't you pointed it to Dan instead of attacking me without reason? I gave both sides of the data, I suggested him to read Thomas Aquinas along with Russell. Both are historical extremes about this matter in philosophy, and of course there are more, and a continuous discussion that I never denied. Apart from being disrespectful, Kurieuo, it's obvious that you don't enjoy any higher intellectual ground whatsoever, and your prejudice driven by fundamentalism doesn't make you look better.
Furthermore, a response to the question about where God came from, which appears to have been persuasively argued by Russel (to some), can be found at http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=58. There are many responses to Russel, and your lack of knowledge about them seems telling so I wouldn't try assuming some sort of higher intellectual ground than others here.
Tell me, Kurieuo, if you already knew about this section you mention, why didn't you pointed it to Dan instead of attacking me without reason? I gave both sides of the data, I suggested him to read Thomas Aquinas along with Russell. Both are historical extremes about this matter in philosophy, and of course there are more, and a continuous discussion that I never denied. Apart from being disrespectful, Kurieuo, it's obvious that you don't enjoy any higher intellectual ground whatsoever, and your prejudice driven by fundamentalism doesn't make you look better.
No, I'm fairly sure you stated that the atheists "rebuked" this argument. I don't recall you giving both positions, except for a strawman of Aquinas' idea for Russel to burn.
Furthermore, a response to the question about where God came from, which appears to have been persuasively argued by Russel (to some), can be found at http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=58. There are many responses to Russel, and your lack of knowledge about them seems telling so I wouldn't try assuming some sort of higher intellectual ground than others here.
Tell me, Kurieuo, if you already knew about this section you mention, why didn't you pointed it to Dan instead of attacking me without reason? I gave both sides of the data, I suggested him to read Thomas Aquinas along with Russell. Both are historical extremes about this matter in philosophy, and of course there are more, and a continuous discussion that I never denied. Apart from being disrespectful, Kurieuo, it's obvious that you don't enjoy any higher intellectual ground whatsoever, and your prejudice driven by fundamentalism doesn't make you look better.
No, I'm fairly sure you stated that the atheists "rebuked" this argument. I don't recall you giving both positions, except for a strawman of Aquinas' idea for Russel to burn.
Aquinas' argument isn't a strawman, in fact it was the best you could do without any advanced scientific data. It was the best of his time and beyond.
atheist wrote:Tell me, Kurieuo, if you already knew about this section you mention, why didn't you pointed it to Dan instead of attacking me without reason?
Attacking you without reason? Forgive me for responding to some of your comments and the issue at hand.
atheist wrote:Apart from being disrespectful, Kurieuo, it's obvious that you don't enjoy any higher intellectual ground whatsoever, and your prejudice driven by fundamentalism doesn't make you look better.
Sorry if I'm not as intelligent as you'd like me to be, however thankfully I don't take your comments to heart. I'll leave my posts at this board speak for themselves...
As for fundamentalism, whether I am a fundamentalist (whatever that means to you) or not, such has nothing to do with the reasonableness of any arguments I present. If you have a basic undertaking in philosophy, I'm sure you will be aware that dismissing what I say on the grounds that I belong to a particular groud (i.e., "fundamentalism") is a genetic fallacy. Therefore such is irrelevant.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
It is up to the person reading the exchanges to decide which sounds more likely to them.