Some kind of phase change in an eternal process.
The Bible. Myth or Reality?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
spinner981
Registered Member
What does it mean for a reason to be 'good'? What does it mean for a reason to be 'bad'? Who gets to determine whether or not a reason is 'good'?
It's not that we don't know something, it's that we do know something. We do know that our universe operates off of cause and effect, so if the origin of the universe was natural like our natural universe, it too must have a cause, which just causes the problem to them become "What caused that thing to come into existence?" and would produce infinite regress. We know that the cause of the natural universe couldn't be natural, and the only alternative is supernatural (ie: not bounds by the laws and workings of nature). It's simply the process of elimination.
Because the universe does operate under rules we think we know. It operates under cause and effect, and so far even the greatest scientific minds in the world haven't produced a flawless explanation for how our particular universe could have existed for eternity. Even the big bounce poses a problem under the circumstances such as heat death, which looks more likely to be true for our universe than a 'big bounce' or 'big compression'. Even if a big bounce did happen, nothing remains constant within the singularity caused by it, so it isn't honest to assume that the universe that is produced by this big bounce would have the same amount of dark energy/mass/etc. necessary for a big bounce and not heat death. Basically, the idea of God is that he isn't limited by anything, while we know of many limits that the natural universe has, said limits being what makes the natural universe natural to begin with. Let's also not forget that we do not have a firm grasp on quantum physics, and that these theories for the origin of the universe are theoretical. They might be true, or they might be completely false.
So what you're saying, is that some historical texts should be deemed untrustworthy in telling history, if they contain something you have a personal problem with? That is to say, it doesn't matter how much the Bible makes sense of everything, anything you personally don't agree with is automatically assumed to be wrong?
No we don't.
And to repeat Deacon's sentiments, what is it about being spiritual / not material that means it is absent the requirement for coming into being?
You also haven't explained why the material needs to come into being? Energy is not lost in our universe. Matter and energy is conserved through equivalence. All that seems to happen inside the universe is transformation of one form into another.
So all I smell here is special pleading on your part, Jan. And a whiff of premonition of circular reasoning to come.
To come into being means that thing is affected by the laws of nature. God cannot be subject to the laws of nature
I didn't say that matter came into being.
So you keep saying, but have yet to demonstrate it.
jan.
Thus special pleading.
Yes you did:
Deacon: What does being immaterial have to do with not coming into being?
You: It means God is spiritual, rather than material.
Ergo you are saying that which is material comes into being.
I'm not going to start having to explain to you the meaning of your own arguments again, am I? If you can't understand what it is you have said, how do you expect conversations to progress?
See above. You are pleading for God to be treated differently from all else. This is classic special pleading. QED.
Sorry, I meant to say that thing is not affected...
Where am I demanding an exception to the rule?
And more importantly, what is the rule, what is the exception, who decided that they are, and how is this knowledge justyfiable?
It's sad that you have to sink to these levels.
The discussion Deacon and myself had was regard to the universe, which is material by nature.
The universe came into being, but God doesn't come into being.
jan.
I'm looking for what you define as God - and it isn't there. It has been explained to you that your logic is wrong: you can't have an uncaused cause and insist that everything must have a cause. You yourself have essentially defined your own "god" out of existence.
Because something is written in a book is never reason enough to believe it. Anyone can write anything in a book. How do you know it's not just fiction with a few historical elements?
We know that cause and effect seem to rule some portions of our present universe on a macro level. How do you know that applies to all situations throughout time? At one point, we can extrapolate that the universe was small enough for quantum effects to dominate, and cause and effect don't seem to apply there in the same way.
That's a fallacy, nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. It is not the default position when natural explanations fail. And besides, there are several plausible (but as yet unproved) explanations for the origin of the universe.
You can define a fictional entity any way you wish, the fact remains that there is no evidence for a god.
No, all texts should be deemed untrustworthy in telling history. History never depends on just one source, especially if it wasn't even written at the time the events were supposed to have occurred. And yes, I do have a problem with magical stories being taken as fact. It tends to undermine the credibility of the text.
Eh??? So now you're saying that to come into being means that thing is not affected by the laws of nature? So you have not been brought into being? The universe hasn't? Nothing has?
Every time you say that God does not need to be caused.
The rule, as you have set it out: "all effects have causes" - from post #213
You have excluded God from this (again post #213) because, you claim, "God isn't an effect".
You have thus decided that it is an exception.
You have been unable so far to show how this knowledge is justifiable.
???
Deacon's first post in this thread (#25) is not relevant - about news stories.
His first relevant post (#27): "I wonder what a God is made of? I'd love to know the evolutionary history of its species."
His next post (#214): "Then what caused God?" No mention of the universe so far.
His next (#224): "I still want to know what caused God..."
You then respond (#226) with a typical non-answer in the form of a question: "Why would God have to be caused?" which is special pleading.
His next relevant post (#252): "Did God come into being?"
To which you responded (#253): "No."
He then asked (#256): "Why do you think that?"
Your reply (#257): "Because God has to be immaterial, the opposite of material."
He then asked (#258): "What does being immaterial have to do with not coming into being?"
Your non-answer (#259): "It means God is spiritual, rather than material."
His next response (#260): "That still doesn't explain why you think God didn't come into being. If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause, too."
So please, no more lying to try to extricate yourself: where in any of that exchange was the discussion limited to the universe?
You think it's sad that I have to "sink to these levels" - yet it is you who twists, turns, lies, obfuscates, raises strawmen etc to avoid seemingly legitimate issues raised with the consistency of what you say, let alone the veracity.
Deacon responded to my response to Spidergoat. He (SP) asked "If God can be uncaused, why not the universe itself? "
Deacon went on to ask why I thought that God didn't come into being, to which I replied. " Because God is immaterial, the opposite of material." I went on to explain that God's nature is pure unadulterated spirit. At no time have I ever stated that matter is created.
Jan.
I didn't say God doesn't' need to be caused.
God cannot be caused. That is not special pleading.
Yes and you yourself acknowledged that I am using the cosmological argument which posits that every thing that begins to exist has a cause. God, by His very nature did not begin to exist. Therefore God has no cause.
No special pleading necessary.
Your accusations have been demonstrated to be false. Your responses offer no challenge to my position which is why you need to go poking around past posts to get something to catch me out.
Jan.
As shown in post #268, while you may not have stated it explicitly, it logically concludes from what you have said. Either your grasp of logic is so tenuous that you can't see it, or your pride prevents you from acknowledging it. Either way, you're showing yourself up to be far from the person you seem to want to portray.
How are you looking for it?
I'm explaining to you that only everything that begins to exist has a cause. God by His very nature can not have been caused, because He Does not begin to exist.
Please explain how so.
Jan.
1. If something can not be then either it doesn't need to be or it doesn't exist. You claim/believe God exists so can not and does not are equivalent. So quit your semantic bullcrap. Please.
2. If you claim something doesn't need to be or cannot be what everything else is, that is special pleading. You saying otherwise wontchange it and simply shows that you have no grasp of thfallacy you're committing.
Yes and you yourself acknowledged that I am using the cosmological argument which posits that every thing that begins to exist
Sheesh, you really don't even read up on arguments you make, do you. Special pleading is one of the main criticisms of the cosmological argument. Sticking your head in the sand about it wont help.
You need to do more than simply say I'm wrong to demonstrate their falseness, Jan. And to be able to demonstrate they're false you do actually need a grasp of what the accusation actually means. You don't appear to.
Or is the qquality of your posts simply going to be "you're wrong... there, I've demonstrated that you're wrong"?
Last edited:
How do you know God's nature?