Question for believers in ID.

[wynn]

Because in saying that the universe requires a beginning, you are establishing a universal rule - "everything requires a beginning". Since God is something and not nothing, God, by your own rule, requires a beginning. It's not complicated, it's just what would be required for logical consistency.

You're grasping at straws, working out of a fallacious notion of what the "everything" in "everything must have a beginning" is referring to.

Theists tend to mean that the "everything" in "everything must have a beginning" is referring to 'everything that we usually see, hear, touch, smell, taste and think, has a beginning, a source.' Which is generally not considered controversial by atheists.

 

[SciWriter]

You're grasping at straws, working out of a fallacious notion of what the "everything" in "everything must have a beginning" is referring to.

Theists tend to mean that the "everything" in "everything must have a beginning" is referring to 'everything that we usually see, hear, touch, smell, taste and think, has a beginning, a source.' Which is generally not considered controversial by atheists.

I found the answer to the Beginning of the Universe, as of a few days ago. I had help, but I already knew the idea had to be true. It was just a matter of obtaining the math.

 

[wynn]

I found the answer to the Beginning of the Universe, as of a few days ago. I had help, but I already knew the idea had to be true. It was just a matter of obtaining the math.

And the prooh that you have found The Answer is that you are posting about it on an internet forum!

 

[SciWriter]

And the prooh that you have found The Answer is that you are posting about it on an internet forum!

Yes, and it has already been posted in this thread. See my next to previous post, no more than a page back. It has a link.

The finding of the reason for the Universe is not all that is revealed, for it is the Theory of Everything. It is simple, as one would already expect, and the proof is complete, which is a necessity, and it was already down to two opposing positions (or their mixture), which are Something Forever vs Something From Nothing.

Since the TOE was already in hand as being one of the two, it proved best to look more deeply into each option, to find the true answer; otherwise, both of the options might have been shoved off or ignored, since each one seems to be a paradox in itself; however, since there are no true paradoxes, this means that we were obviously missing something, for one has to give, and that is the power of logic.

The answer even accounts for the number of particles in the universe, plus why the electron and the proton are the only two stable matter particles in free space (and their anti-particles). It is that there are only two ways to make them.

It also unifies all the forces.

The math is elementary trigonometry.

The religious forums will no longer be as necessary, but that was not the intent, it being just a fall out. For completeness, though, the notion of ‘God’ is disproved all on its own, separately. The search was for the truth, wherever it may have led.

I also have the future, as well as all that lies between.

 

[lightgigantic]

If that were the case, then the creator wouldn't be the creator. It would just be part of the creation.

no more than the sun is simply part of the sunlight
:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

You're grasping at straws, working out of a fallacious notion of what the "everything" in "everything must have a beginning" is referring to.

It doesn't matter if theists think the rules should apply to God or not. Their own argument demands that it does.

Theists tend to mean that the "everything" in "everything must have a beginning" is referring to 'everything that we usually see, hear, touch, smell, taste and think, has a beginning, a source.' Which is generally not considered controversial by atheists.

No they don't. They're also talking about the stuff we can't see, hear, touch, smell, taste, or think. It's dark matter and quantum mechanics and space itself. Are you even paying attention?

 

[Balerion]

no more than the sun is simply part of the sunlight

Not true. If G:shrug:d is created then G:shrug:d is a creation in and of itself, and only "special" from our limited perspective. From the perspective of its own creator--and from the infinite line of creators to come before it--God would be decidedly mundane.

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

It doesn't matter if theists think the rules should apply to God or not. Their own argument demands that it does.

No, it's your fallacious interpretation of their argument that demands that.

 

[Jan Ardena]

gmilam.

I suspect that the universe "just is".

Why?

If you want to insist that god "just is", that's fine...

There is no need for you to posit ''the universe just is'', because you don't believe
in God. And the God you express disbelieve in ''just is''.

It makes me wonder why you feel you have to match the claim to try and make a point.

But at least we both know that the universe exists.

Existence isn't the problem, belief is.
It's stupid to use the universe as an alternative to God, in this case.
It sound desparate.

While we both agree that the buck stops somewhere, I prefer not to pull imaginary realms out of my back orifice. If you choose to do so, that's fine. But I'm not required to give it any credence until you cough up some evidence.

Oh but you're prepared to say stupid things like the universe just is, eternal, part of a multiverse, or any shit as long ''we don't allow
a divine foot in the door'' because matter is absolute.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not true. If G:shrug:d is created then G:shrug:d is a creation in and of itself, and only "special" from our limited perspective. From the perspective of its own creator--and from the infinite line of creators to come before it--God would be decidedly mundane.

LOL!!

Is this the length and breadth of you argument against an intelligent creator.

Running from you? :roflmao:

Go learn something about God, religion, or spirituality, and even if you're in the right ball-park, I'll run from you as kind-hearted gesture.


jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Why wouldn't the original cause be ''intelligent''?
Without consciousnes, nothing can be observed let alone created.

"Created" is a loaded term in this context. Try your statement again without the loaded language: "Without consciousness, nothing can come to exist." Now, that is a statement that requires some kind of argument, at least, to establish it. And you have provided none.

At some point this material phenomena came into being and must have had a cause, since it couldn't have caused itself. At some point there must be an original cause, the cause of everything.

This is a very old argument, of the form:

1. All things have a cause.
2. The universe is a thing.
3. Therefore the universe must have a cause.

From this, you leap - somehow! - to

4. Therefore, the cause is God.

But your initial premise (1) is an unproven assumption, and (4) does not follow logically from the earlier statements.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

"Created" is a loaded term in this context. Try your statement again without the loaded language: "Without consciousness, nothing can come to exist." Now, that is a statement that requires some kind of argument, at least, to establish it. And you have provided none.

I'm using it in a general sense.
We see a building, we assume it has been created from intelligence.

This is a very old argument, of the form:

1. All things have a cause.
2. The universe is a thing.
3. Therefore the universe must have a cause.

I don't even regard it as an argument, it's just common sense.

From this, you leap - somehow! - to

4. Therefore, the cause is God.

But your initial premise (1) is an unproven assumption, and (4) does not follow logically from the earlier statements.

I haven't leapt to that, that is my conclusion.

If all things don't have a cause then the assumption would fail, but as far as we can see all things do have a cause.
And if something doesn't appear to have a cause, it would be illogical to assume that it didn't have a cause.

As for number 4, it follows that if the universe came into being, then something must have caused that to happen.
This thing had to be, prior to the creation of the universe, at which point 'time' was created.
This thing must therefore not be affected by time, and as such does not come into, or go out of being.

Having read the scriptures, I believe that this thing is God.

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I'm using it in a general sense.
We see a building, we assume it has been created from intelligence.

Yes, but we're familiar with seeing buildings created. We grow up and learn how buildings are created.

Nobody has ever seen a universe starting up.

If all things don't have a cause then the assumption would fail, but as far as we can see all things do have a cause.

What was the cause of God?

Oh, wait, you said "God just is". But that negates your assumption that all things have a cause. So, why not dispense with God and say that the universe "just is" instead?

As for number 4, it follows that if the universe came into being, then something must have caused that to happen.
This thing had to be, prior to the creation of the universe, at which point 'time' was created.

There is no "prior" to the point at which time came into being, by definition. And talking of "causes" automatically invokes the concept of the passage of time.

But perhaps you're imagining some kind of "multiverse", in which our universe is embedded, which has its own "separate" time - a time in which your God can do things. If that is the case, again I see no need to introduce God into the picture, since natural processes in the multiverse may have been quite sufficient to "cause" the big bang.

This thing must therefore not be affected by time, and as such does not come into, or go out of being.

The multiverse itself (if it exists) would seem to satisfy that criterion adequately.

Having read the scriptures, I believe that this thing is God.

Why do you place so much confidence in your scriptures?

 

[Yazata]

And the persuasive reason is that one needs to take responsibility for one's questions and take responsibility for the choice of person of whom one asks these questions.

Are you suggesting that philosophical disagreement with "ID" arguments causes pain and suffering to those who are somehow psychologically reliant on those arguments?

These are the points that many people, esp. those who consider themselves atheists, forget. Instead, they ask questions as if merely the fact that a question occured in their mind would be all the necessary justification to seek an answer for it, from anyone who is willing to try and reply to it.

"ID" proponents are perfectly free to address their own argument to the general public, and particularly to those who don't already share their religious faith?

Their design-arguments are apparently intended to be strong and definitive. The suggestion seems to be that they should be accepted by everyone, at least in the absence of persuasive counter-argument.

But now, in your view at least, any expression of disagreement with their views is being ruled out, because disagreement might cause them pain and suffering, and represents some kind of atheistic psychological violence against them?

That kind of privileged position with its immunity from any disagreement and its guaranteed rhetorical victory would be awfully convenient for the theists, wouldn't it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Yes, but we're familiar with seeing buildings created. We grow up and learn how buildings are created.

I'm not familiar with bridges being created, never saw one as I was growing up.
I've never seen a statue, watch, battery, bulb, or teabag being created. But you know what, they look created
and by jingo, they are. The universe looks created or caused by something with intelligence.
You may not think so because it collides with you belief system, but I'm cool with it.

Nobody has ever seen a universe starting up.

So you have to see something being created to accept it's created?

What was the cause of God?
Oh, wait, you said "God just is". But that negates your assumption that all things have a cause.
So, why not dispense with God and say that the universe "just is" instead?

Nice try JR.

The primary definition of ''thing'' is ''a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.''

Here is a definition of Gods' nature from Bhagavad Gita.


Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.

There is no "prior" to the point at which time came into being, by definition.
And talking of "causes" automatically invokes the concept of the passage of time.

Of course there's no prior, as far as you're concerned, there is as far as I'm concerned.
Now if you know for a scientific fact that there was no prior to time...spill.

Oh! I forgot, there is no modern science before the creation of the universe!

But perhaps you're imagining some kind of "multiverse", in which our universe is embedded, which has its own "separate" time - a time in which your God can do things. If that is the case, again I see no need to introduce God into the picture, since natural processes in the multiverse may have been quite sufficient to "cause" the big bang.

I'm not interested in your need to introduce God into any picture.
The multiverse hypothesis is just a way of keeping the divine foot out of the door. because materialism is absolute.
The thing is, I believe there are multiple universe, and it is explained this in some scriptures.

The multiverse itself (if it exists) would seem to satisfy that criterion adequately.

And the criterion is to satisfy modern atheists?

Why do you place so much confidence in your scriptures?

Becuse some editions have pretty pictures in the centre pages.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

"ID" proponents are perfectly free to address their own argument to the general public, and particularly to those who don't already share their religious faith?

They do, but they tend to have comedians on the opposite side derailing their dialogue.
And though some ID'ists may be religious, the ID isn't.

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

Not true. If G:shrug:d is created then G:shrug:d is a creation in and of itself, and only "special" from our limited perspective. From the perspective of its own creator--and from the infinite line of creators to come before it--God would be decidedly mundane.

now go back to the explanation of god existing simultaneously with potencies (much like the sun existing simultaneously with sunlight) and explain why you think you have a point ...

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Are you suggesting that philosophical disagreement with "ID" arguments causes pain and suffering to those who are somehow psychologically reliant on those arguments?
/.../
That kind of privileged position with its immunity from any disagreement and its guaranteed rhetorical victory would be awfully convenient for the theists, wouldn't it?

No, the pain caused by blanket disagreement with ID is caused to the disagreers, ie. the atheists and skeptics.

I mean that you are the one who is suffering in some way or another when you disagree with IDers.

I don't know if IDers are suffering when people disagree with them; and this was never my suggestion. I am baffled as to how you came to interpret my post that way.


Like I said, I mean that you are the one who is suffering in some way or another when you disagree with IDers.
But by this I am not suggesting that you should agree with the IDers - that would be a kind of Stockholm Syndrome solution to a philosophical problem, and I don't think such a solution is viable.
If disagreeing with someone causes one suffering in one form or another (and while philosophical suffering tends to be very subtle, it can be extremely potent), then I think it is wise to look into one's intentions behind the disagreement.

If one really believes that the IDers are simply wrong, why not shoo them away with an idle hand gesture? Why the mental and emotional (and physical etc.) involvement?
And if one believes that the IDers are simply wrong and if one is concerned about the social or economical or political power that IDers may have, is it really the most productive way to approach them on the philosophical front?

 

[wynn]

Why do you place so much confidence in your scriptures?

Try reading them once you're really clean and sober - you'll see the effect they have.

 

[Syne]

It seem to me that the ID argument can be applied to the designer, then applied to the designer of the designer, et cetera. Is there a way out of this hierarchy of designers?

The ID argument is simply a weak argument.