Against Religious Tolerance

You brought up some good points and I need to clarify my position. It seems you are correct in asserting that we have no evidence for Creations, after all, thats part of Revelation. But this inquiry is from Nature. Let me not bring in questions of Creation like I have been, for that is not the proper object of our inquiry.

Immaterial reality however seems to be natural, a part of nature, and there is much evidence for it by examining things like gravity, laws of motion, mathematics, etc.

Our inquiry, as it seems, is the question as to wether the universe is infinite, and whether there is a first cause.

I will need to read up some more on the infinite universe idea. Please let us continue this discussion later. What is your proof, however, that the universe is infinite? Is it merely proof from absence of knowing?
 
I will need to read up some more on the infinite universe idea. Please let us continue this discussion later. What is your proof, however, that the universe is infinite? Is it merely proof from absence of knowing?
Click to expand...

Lawdog, if you look back at some of the links that I presented agaisnt the BB theory the evidence is accumulating against a point of origin of the universe, this would make the universe infinite in existence to the past, as yet we can't know however to the future. But predictably it's also infinite into the future. ;)
 
Lawdog,

Immaterial reality however seems to be natural, a part of nature, and there is much evidence for it by examining things like gravity, laws of motion, mathematics, etc.
Click to expand...
My objection here is to the word “immaterial”. I think you may be trying to link abstractions and the properties of invisible forces to support a version of supernatural and that is not correct. The fabric of the universe appears to be held together by 4 fundamental forces; gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Combinations of these have also been proposed and under all that may be something more fundamental known as strings. All matter and energy can be explained via these very material forces. Don’t confuse the term “material” with “matter”, e.g. energy is a material phenomenon. Also, the relationships between material objects and the behavior of material objects as expressed by mathematics or other labels are not objects that are considered as material or immaterial, they are simply labels or descriptions of material processes.

Our inquiry, as it seems, is the question as to wether the universe is infinite, and whether there is a first cause.
Click to expand...
Well not quite. I don’t believe we have enough information to reach such conclusions. I am more concerned with the thought processes where we consider such issues and where we should avoid reaching premature conclusions based on inaccurate assumptions.

I will need to read up some more on the infinite universe idea. Please let us continue this discussion later.
Click to expand...
Ok good.

What is your proof, however, that the universe is infinite?
Click to expand...
Note that I am not claiming the universe is infinite only that we have no reason to believe it is not. It clearly exists so what might lead us to believe it has not always existed.

Is it merely proof from absence of knowing?
Click to expand...
I don’t claim a proof. The issue is more about what might suggest something to the contrary. The creator concept in this respect simply seems an overly complex, unnecessary, and redundant proposal. It is offering a solution to a problem where perhaps there is no problem.
 
Yes, it is unnecessary to consider Creation at this point. After all, Creation ex nihilo is held to be a miracle. It is only useful in the contxt of Revealed religion. my intention now is to study Nature and natural laws deduce from there what can be known, if anything, of deity from that standpoint.
 
Becarefull Lawdog, yoursteping in dagerous territory, when it comes to "nature" and biblical literature. They don't add up. ;)
 
Yet I think Lawdog is genuinely looking for support rather than merely quoting blind doctrine. This is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top