Arguments...

[swim2112]

Since we are talking about arguements for the existance of God... I decided that I would throw out a few more...

Argument from Change

I. Nothing changes itself
Even animals and people are changed by will or desire

II. The cause of change must be greater than the thing being changed

III. No matter how many things are in a series, each one needs something outside of itself to actualize its potential for change

IV. The universe is in a process of change, therefore there has to be something outside of the universe causing the change

V. SInce the universe is the sum of all things physical: matter, space and time, the source of the change must be greater than matter, space and time

Argument from Effcient Causality

I. Everything in the universe needs to be caused to exist... however this does not make sense because there cannot be an infinite number of events.

II. There must be something which is not caused to exist


Argument from Desire

I. Every natural desire corresponds with somthing which can fulfill that desire

II. There exists in humans a desire which nothing in the physical world can satisify

III. Something must exist which is outside of our physical world


I will post the Argument from Religious Experience tomorrow :)

[JerryLove]

I. Untrue, I had some lymphatic cells that changed themselves and went rampaging through my body.

II. Untrue, the change occured through a problem with a DNA molecule and affected an entire cell, which in-turn changed a body.

III. Logically impossable

IV. Devalidated by an inability to support I-III

V. Devalidated by inability to support I-IV


Argument from Effcient Causality

I. No evidence has been offered establishing the universe as an effect.

II. I agree with this


Argument from Desire

I. I disagree, we persue solutions to desires. Most exist for reasons, but not neccessairily the reasons they are used for today.

II. I agree, but only to the extent that it exists socially and intellectually.

III. Unsupported.

[Karen M]

Hello Swim :D


>>>Argument from Change

I. Nothing changes itself
Even animals and people are changed by will or desire<<<

I would say will or desire comes from cause and effect, and that, in the end, everything is changed by cause and effect. But, I basically agree with the above statement.


>>>II. The cause of change must be greater than the thing being changed<<<

Explain this?


>>>III. No matter how many things are in a series, each one needs something outside of itself to actualize its potential for change<<<

Agreed.


>>>IV. The universe is in a process of change, therefore there has to be something outside of the universe causing the change<<<

This isn't necessarily true if, by definition, the universe is everything in existance. Therefore, something that didn't exist caused existance? :) On the other hand, assuming the definition is simply that which happened after the Big Bang, then I suppose this would be true...


>>>V. SInce the universe is the sum of all things physical: matter, space and time, the source of the change must be greater than matter, space and time<<<

You can't have it both ways. Either the universe is EVERYTHING in existance(in which case there would have to be infinite regress, which, though I have claimed it is not likely on another thread, I'm starting to consider the possibliltiy again) or the universe is simply our universe(and there is more than one) and therefore would not contain all matter and energy in existance.



>>>Argument from Effcient Causality

I. Everything in the universe needs to be caused to exist... however this does not make sense because there cannot be an infinite number of events.<<<

Though, again, I have already said infinite regress is unlikely on a different thread, I have not rulled it out completely. Also, quantum physics may contradict this(though I personally think that it was caused and they just haven't found the cause yet...)


>>>II. There must be something which is not caused to exist<<<

Not necessarily. But, again, even if there was something that was not caused to exist, it is more likely to be a natural force or something not sentient rather than an omnipotent God who specificly created humanity. ;)


>>>Argument from Desire

I. Every natural desire corresponds with somthing which can fulfill that desire<<<

Not necessarly. I have a desire to fly like a bird, but I don't think I can find anything natural that will make that happen. :)


>>>II. There exists in humans a desire which nothing in the physical world can satisify<<<

Perhaps.


>>>III. Something must exist which is outside of our physical world<<<

Sorry, I don't think so... :(


They were nice arguements though :)

Karen

[Karen M]

Hmm...I think Jerry and I have different views on these so you may want to answer us separatly instead of collectivly...

[guitarman]

Hey, I'm gonna jump in on this when I get some free time :).

Aaron

[guitarman]

Argument from Change

Response from JerryLove
I. Nothing changes itself
Even animals and people are changed by will or desire

I. Untrue, I had some lymphatic cells that changed themselves and went rampaging through my body.

Ok, first of all, how did those lymphatic cells change themselves? Not even Aristotle believed that material things could move themselves. Also, those lymphatic cells had to have been moved through the body by some means. They didn't simply 'move themselves'.

Response from JerryLove
II. The cause of change must be greater than the thing being changed

II. Untrue, the change occured through a problem with a DNA molecule and affected an entire cell, which in-turn changed a body.
By this definition, DNA is simply greater than the body. No problem here :).


Response from JerryLove
III. No matter how many things are in a series, each one needs something outside of itself to actualize its potential for change

III. Logically impossible
This is a logical fact. This is a basic premise of metaphysics. This is a basis of I.

Response from JerryLove
IV. The universe is in a process of change, therefore there has to be something outside of the universe causing the change

IV. Devalidated by an inability to support I-III
Need response to I-III :).

Response from JerryLove
V. SInce the universe is the sum of all things physical: matter, space and time, the source of the change must be greater than matter, space and time

V. Devalidated by inability to support I-IV
Need response to I-III :).

Argument from Efficient Causality

Response from JerryLove
I. Everything in the universe needs to be caused to exist... however this does not make sense because there cannot be an infinite number of events.

I. No evidence has been offered establishing the universe as an effect.
Who said that the universe was an effect?

Response from JerryLove
II. There must be something which is not caused to exist

II. I agree with this
Yet you say a thing can have a principle of motion within itself. Odd. This answer contradicts what you said in Argument From Change: I above.


Argument from Desire

Response from JerryLove
I. Every natural desire corresponds with something which can fulfill that desire

I. I disagree, we persue solutions to desires. Most exist for reasons, but not neccessairily the reasons they are used for today.
How can you disagree and yet agree with a statement that simply re-words what she just posited?

Response from JerryLove
II. There exists in humans a desire which nothing in the physical world can satisify

II. I agree, but only to the extent that it exists socially and intellectually.
Ok.

Response from JerryLove
III. Something must exist which is outside of our physical world

III. Unsupported.
Supported by II.


Aaron

[JerryLove]

Ok, first of all, how did those lymphatic cells change themselves? Not even Aristotle believed that material things could move themselves. Also, those lymphatic cells had to have been moved through the body by some means. They didn't simply 'move themselves'. A DNA fragement responsable for controling life-cycle broke off or failed and the cells bagan replicating. They spread by simply increasing in number and by traveling along the lymphaitc system. What desire do you think they had?

By this definition, DNA is simply greater than the body. No problem here . And then when a person manipulates a DNA strand it shows that the body is greater than the DNA. So you have A>B and B>A, which is a logical impossability.

This is a logical fact. This is a basic premise of metaphysics. This is a basis of I. So what did God need outside of himself to actualize his potential? It's a logical impossability, not everything can have something outside itself.

Who said that the universe was an effect? The original poster when he stated that everything in the universe required a cause.

Yet you say a thing can have a principle of motion within itself. Odd. No, I agreed that there must be something which did not have a cause.

How can you disagree and yet agree with a statement that simply re-words what she just posited? What we desire, and what the reson for the desire once were are not always in concert. For example, we desire to not die (a survival instinct); combined with precognition (the ability to predict our eventual deaths) this gets transmuted into a desire to prevent the inevitable (death) so we fabricate an afterlife in orter to appease our survuval instinct.

We have a desire (to live) that is unfulfilled. It is now a desire for an afterfile (for which there is no fulfillment ecept a delusion of religion).

Supported by II. Things do not "exist" mentally or socially.

[guitarman]

Hey Lindsey, I don't want to take over your whole thread here, so I'm gonna wait for a response. If you don't post for a little longer, I'll pick up :).

Aaron

[swim2112]

Originally posted by Karen M
Hello Swim :D

Hey Karen :)


>>>II. The cause of change must be greater than the thing being changed<<<

Explain this?

kk... basically that initiator of a change has to be bigger than the change...

Does that help?


>>>III. No matter how many things are in a series, each one needs something outside of itself to actualize its potential for change<<<

Agreed.

Good good :)


>>>IV. The universe is in a process of change, therefore there has to be something outside of the universe causing the change<<<

This isn't necessarily true if, by definition, the universe is everything in existance. Therefore, something that didn't exist caused existance? :) On the other hand, assuming the definition is simply that which happened after the Big Bang, then I suppose this would be true...
I do not quite see what you are saying...

>>>V. Since the universe is the sum of all things physical: matter, space and time, the source of the change must be greater than matter, space and time<<<

You can't have it both ways. Either the universe is EVERYTHING in existance

It is the sum of all things in existance...



>>>Argument from Effcient Causality

I. Everything in the universe needs to be caused to exist... however this does not make sense because there cannot be an infinite number of events.<<<

Though, again, I have already said infinite regress is unlikely on a different thread, I have not rulled it out completely. Also, quantum physics may contradict this(though I personally think that it was caused and they just haven't found the cause yet...)

Oh... I have a book recomendation for you if you are interested... The Holographic Universe. It deals with this (a bit) and I think that you might find it interesting :) (just don't read the chapter on miracles... ;))

>>>II. There must be something which is not caused to exist<<<

Not necessarily. But, again, even if there was something that was not caused to exist, it is more likely to be a natural force or something not sentient rather than an omnipotent God who specificly created humanity. ;)
Well, I am not trying to prove the fact that the God that I call God created the universe...only that there is a Being that did create it...


>>>Argument from Desire

I. Every natural desire corresponds with somthing which can fulfill that desire<<<

Not necessarly. I have a desire to fly like a bird, but I don't think I can find anything natural that will make that happen. :)
Maybe... but is that a true desire? :-/

>>>II. There exists in humans a desire which nothing in the physical world can satisify<<<

Perhaps.
I think that there is :). Why else do we chase after things and set them higher than we set ourselves?



They were nice arguements though :)
Thanks :)

[swim2112]

Originally posted by guitarman
Hey Lindsey, I don't want to take over your whole thread here, so I'm gonna wait for a response. If you don't post for a little longer, I'll pick up :).

Aaron

Hey Aaron... thanks...

Man... winterbreak is a time to relax... to have time on your hands... to just be lazy... YEAH RIGHT!!

I have been a bit busy, and have not been able to keep up with this thread... so I am glad that you were here for me :) Thanks :)! You are doing a better job than I could have :)

God Bless
swim2112

[Karen M]

Hello Swim :D


>>>kk... basically that initiator of a change has to be bigger than the change...

Does that help?<<<

I understood what you were trying to say; I just don't understand why the initiator of a change has to be bigger than the change?



>>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>IV. The universe is in a process of change, therefore there has to be something outside of the universe causing the change<<<

This isn't necessarily true if, by definition, the universe is everything in existance. Therefore, something that didn't exist caused existance? On the other hand, assuming the definition is simply that which happened after the Big Bang, then I suppose this would be true...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I do not quite see what you are saying...<<<

Okay, either we are one universe in many and therefore, our universe does not contain all matter, entergy, and existance. Or, by "universe" you mean everything in existance. If your God exists, this would include him.


>>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>V. Since the universe is the sum of all things physical: matter, space and time, the source of the change must be greater than matter, space and time<<<

You can't have it both ways. Either the universe is EVERYTHING in existance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is the sum of all things in existance...<<<

Okay, then God is part of the universe if he exists. :)



>>>Oh... I have a book recomendation for you if you are interested... The Holographic Universe. It deals with this (a bit) and I think that you might find it interesting (just don't read the chapter on miracles... )<<<

Thanks for the suggestion :)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>II. There must be something which is not caused to exist<<<

Not necessarily. But, again, even if there was something that was not caused to exist, it is more likely to be a natural force or something not sentient rather than an omnipotent God who specificly created humanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>>Well, I am not trying to prove the fact that the God that I call God created the universe...only that there is a Being that did create it...<<<

Yes, and what I am saying is that the "something which is not caused to exist" could just be a natural force or something beyond our comprehension instead of a living being. Also, what would this being live on, breathe, sleep on, eat, etc.? It just seems more likely that it could have been a natural force. :)



>>>Maybe... but is that a true desire? :-/<<<

Yes, if you count desires that are not possible to occur. :)



>>>I think that there is . Why else do we chase after things and set them higher than we set ourselves?<<<

We chase after things that we hope will benefit us or make us happy. Also, what things to we "set higher than we set ourselves?"


Have a nice holiday :D

Karen

[guitarman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
A DNA fragement responsable for controling life-cycle broke off or failed and the cells bagan replicating. They spread by simply increasing in number and by traveling along the lymphaitc system. What desire do you think they had?
Nothing moves without being moved by something else. In your case, you can trace this back to the most minute event and you will find that every event in the cycle was caused by something else. Is there a part of the cycle that has just begun with no prompting?

Aaron

[guitarman]

Originally posted by Karen M
Yes, and what I am saying is that the "something which is not caused to exist" could just be a natural force or something beyond our comprehension instead of a living being. Also, what would this being live on, breathe, sleep on, eat, etc.? It just seems more likely that it could have been a natural force.
So, we have just discovered that whatever this thing is, it is not dependant upon anything. Correct?

Aaron

[JerryLove]

Nothing moves without being moved by something else. In your case, you can trace this back to the most minute event and you will find that every event in the cycle was caused by something else. Is there a part of the cycle that has just begun with no prompting? Again, a logical impossability. You must at some point stop trying to create causes.

[guitarman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Again, a logical impossability. You must at some point stop trying to create causes.
So you agree that there must have been a first cause? Now, I'm not saying what this first cause is, I'm just saying that it exists.

Also, would you say that there are things on earth that can move themselves? Or would you say that everything on earth seems to be moved by another?

Aaron

[Karen M]

>>>So, we have just discovered that whatever this thing is, it is not dependant upon anything. Correct?<<<

Not necessarily. It could have possibly not been dependant upon something for a short while(but be dependent now), it could be more than one thing, there could be an infinte regress, etc.

[guitarman]

Originally posted by Karen M
Not necessarily. It could have possibly not been dependant upon something for a short while (but be dependent now)
Well, would this thing that started everything have been in existence forever? I mean, wouldn't it have to have been around forever? If it came into existence because of something else, then it would not be a first cause. And if this first cause caused itself to exist, then it is still the first cause. No? (And if this is the case, it still would have existed forever)

Originally posted by Karen M
it could be more than one thing,
Possibly. I'll have to think about this one.

*EDIT* Ok, now that I think about it, we can't conclude this either way :).

Originally posted by Karen M
there could be an infinte regress, etc.
Definitely not. Shall I c+p my proof? ;)


Aaron

[Karen M]

Hello again Aaron :)


>>>Well, would this thing that started everything have been in existence forever? I mean, wouldn't it have to have been around forever?<<<

No.


>>>If it came into existence because of something else, then it would not be a first cause. And if this first cause caused itself to exist, then it is still the first cause. No? (And if this is the case, it still would have existed forever)<<<

Maybe nothing caused it into existance? Maybe it was around forever. Maybe it existed and is now gone. Maybe it comes and goes at random intervals. Anything before the Big Bang is just speculation.


>>>Possibly. I'll have to think about this one.<<<

Okay :)


>>>Definitely not. Shall I c+p my proof?<<<

Yes please. I'm starting to reconsider infinte regress.


Also, by the "etc." in there I meant there were various other possibilities. Some of them probably beyond human comprehention.


I'm in a hurry so I'll have to leave for now though :(

I'll cya later,

Karen

[JerryLove]

So you agree that there must have been a first cause? No, I'm saying that logic demands at least one causeless event.

Now, I'm not saying what this first cause is, I'm just saying that it exists. Confining to effects (which by definition have causes) yes, each effect must have a cause.

Also, would you say that there are things on earth that can move themselves? Or would you say that everything on earth seems to be moved by another? There are many things capiable of self locomotion, and all are being moved as well.

[guitarman]

Originally posted by Karen M
Maybe nothing caused it into existance? Maybe it was around forever. Maybe it existed and is now gone. Maybe it comes and goes at random intervals.
Ok, let us systematically evaluate this. Shall we? :)

There are a limited number of options we have for the existence of this first cause, correct? I would like to posit a list. If you feel I have left any out, please add them :). k?

Here's the list. I have included explanations as best I can (because, as you know, all it takes is one misunderstanding and the whole debate falls apart and makes no sense :)).
1) Existed forever backwards. (Kinda like a ray. A line extends forever in both directions. A ray extends forever in one direction. "Existed forever backwards" would be analogus to a line. This thing existed forever in one direction, but not in the other and thus does not exist now.)
2) Exists forever backwards and forever forewards. (This one is pretty obvious. It says that this thing existed forever with no point at which it did not exist.)
3) Existed forever backwards in intervals. (Same as #1, but has come and gone at regular intervals and now no longer exists.)
4) Exists forever backwards and forever forewards in intervals. (Same as #2, but has come and gone at regular intervals and will continue to oscilate in and out of existence forever.)
5) Exists outside of time. (You have not posited this one, but I will because it is good to be exhaustive. This option says the existence of this thing is not bound by time constraints. It is outside of time and space.)

Just lemme know what you think of this list and if we should add to it or be more specific :).


Originally posted by Karen M
Anything before the Big Bang is just speculation.
I don't think we've come this far in the debate yet, have we? I mean, all we are discussing is the necessity for a first cause, not specifics such as how it happened. I understand the evidence for "Big Band" (and I'm pretty sure I go with it :)), but that's not exactly what were discussing yet :).

Aaron

[guitarman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
There are many things capiable of self locomotion, and all are being moved as well.
Like what?

Aaron

[JerryLove]

Like what? Like "me" and like "everything".

[guitarman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Like "me" and like "everything".
Ok, within this context, it is not you (as a whole) that moves yourself. For example, when you walk, it is your legs that move your body. But there is nothing that can, as a whole, move itself. Everything is moved by something else. Every whole body is moved by a part of itself. Thus, it is not moved by itself but by another.

But, have I not contradicted myself? Earlier I said that this chain of movement must begin somewhere. Well, I still say that. But I will get to this when we have established that nothing has the principle of motion within itself but rather is moved by another. (Because if something had a principle of motion within itself, there would be no need for a first cause.)

Aaron

[JerryLove]

Ok, within this context, it is not you (as a whole) that moves yourself. For example, when you walk, it is your legs that move your body. But there is nothing that can, as a whole, move itself. This is just silly.

Everything is moved by something else. Every whole body is moved by a part of itself. Thus, it is not moved by itself but by another. And the moving part is moved by? Itself. Do you really want me to get into processes like radioactive decay to show particles changing vector of their own volition? Or start talking about self-spawing particles (like protons and positrons spotaniously forming) in quantum mechanics?

But, have I not contradicted myself? Earlier I said that this chain of movement must begin somewhere. Well, I still say that. But I will get to this when we have established that nothing has the principle of motion within itself but rather is moved by another. You have contradicted yourself, the basis of your whole hypothesis is a contradiction. You are arguing that something must have created movement because nothing can move on it's own. In doing so, you are showing that your "something" must have moved (your "first cause" cannot itself have a cause). This disproves your assertion that everthing must have a cause.

So without going into simple imperical data; your hypothesis has a logical falicy that you admint the existance of an action without cause while trying to argue that all action mush have cause. You cannot have it both ways.

[Cadence]

Originally posted by JerryLove
No, I'm saying that logic demands at least one causeless event. God.

[Cadence]

Originally posted by Karen M
Anything before the Big Bang is just speculation.So you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

[JerryLove]

God That's sheer speculation and unneccessairy.

[Cadence]

Originally posted by JerryLove
That's sheer speculation and unneccessairy. Says who?

[Cadence]

Originally posted by JerryLove
That's sheer speculation and unneccessairy. What else would be that "causeless" thing?

[guitarman]

Merry Christmas All!!!


Originally posted by JerryLove
This is just silly.
I wouldn't pass this off as just silly. It is a perfectly logical and true point. If you are going to brush this off as silly, then you will come to no conclusions and we must end our discussion. But, mind you, you are brushing off Plato and Aristotle as silly. I know that you are not one to ignore such powerful minds as the great Philosopher and many comentators of his.

Originally posted by JerryLove
And the moving part is moved by? Itself.
The leg moves itself? Of course not. It is moved by muscles. And the muscles are moved by parts within the muscles. And those parts are triggered by chemcials. And those chemicals....you get the point.

Originally posted by JerryLove
Do you really want me to get into processes like radioactive decay to show particles changing vector of their own volition? Or start talking about self-spawing particles (like protons and positrons spotaniously forming) in quantum mechanics?
If you want to, you can. But I know you're not one to simply ignore possible causes - you have always been thorough :). If you would like to get into this discussion, we can. But I don't know how much good it would do. Especially if you are able to understand, on your own, how every action is triggered by another.

Originally posted by JerryLove
You have contradicted yourself, the basis of your whole hypothesis is a contradiction. You are arguing that something must have created movement because nothing can move on it's own. In doing so, you are showing that your "something" must have moved (your "first cause" cannot itself have a cause). This disproves your assertion that everthing must have a cause.
This is true only if the first cause is moved. What if this first cause is unmoved? (Which is what I would like to posit.)

Originally posted by JerryLove
So without going into simple imperical data; your hypothesis has a logical falicy that you admit the existance of an action without cause while trying to argue that all action mush have cause. You cannot have it both ways.
If there exists an unmoved mover ("an action without cause"), then my idea works. No?


Aaron

[JerryLove]

I wouldn't pass this off as just silly. It is a perfectly logical and true point. No, it's a silly abstract (you don't move your leg does) and is quite a streach of credability to try to support an untrue point.

If you are going to brush this off as silly, then you will come to no conclusions and we must end our discussion. OK, bye.

[guitarman]

Originally posted by JerryLove
No, it's a silly abstract (you don't move your leg does) and is quite a streach of credability to try to support an untrue point.
Abstract? Not at all :). You said you move yourself. Well, in a manner of speaking, you do (and I would say that this is more abstract than saying your legs move you). But when you look at your motion a little closer, you find that it is your legs that move you. And your legs are moved by muscles and tendons. And your muscles are moved by.... and so on.

My premise was that nothing moves itself. I have shown that every part of your body is moved by another. (Side point: And where does this motion begin? I would suggest that it begins in the womb. It is "kick-started" by the mother. And we could follow the cycle back further and further if you like, but the idea would still stand. (Oh, and as the person grows, the motion would come from energy stored up in food -- I'm not too sure about this though, 'cause I haven't thought about it enough.))

Anywho...I'd like to continue this with you, but as I said, it is up to you. It takes to do debate. You don't usually run when you're wrong, do you? hehe...jk:). But from what I know about you, you're always up for figuring things out. And I don't think I've ever seen you end a debate because you feel it's gone too abstract. Lemme know what you want to do.


Have a merry Christmas, Jerry!!!

Aaron

[Karen M]

Hello Aaron :)

Sorry for the delay; I was gone for a while.


>>>Ok, let us systematically evaluate this. Shall we?

There are a limited number of options we have for the existence of this first cause, correct? I would like to posit a list. If you feel I have left any out, please add them . k?

Here's the list. I have included explanations as best I can (because, as you know, all it takes is one misunderstanding and the whole debate falls apart and makes no sense ).
1) Existed forever backwards. (Kinda like a ray. A line extends forever in both directions. A ray extends forever in one direction. "Existed forever backwards" would be analogus to a line. This thing existed forever in one direction, but not in the other and thus does not exist now.)
2) Exists forever backwards and forever forewards. (This one is pretty obvious. It says that this thing existed forever with no point at which it did not exist.)
3) Existed forever backwards in intervals. (Same as #1, but has come and gone at regular intervals and now no longer exists.)
4) Exists forever backwards and forever forewards in intervals. (Same as #2, but has come and gone at regular intervals and will continue to oscilate in and out of existence forever.)
5) Exists outside of time. (You have not posited this one, but I will because it is good to be exhaustive. This option says the existence of this thing is not bound by time constraints. It is outside of time and space.)

Just lemme know what you think of this list and if we should add to it or be more specific.<<<

I suppose all of those are possible until we study it more. :) There is also the possibility that time really does not really exist and it is just a human construct to help understand movement. It could be, not only backwards and forwards, but right and left, up and down, diagonals, cubic, even more advanced than 3D, etc. too. Time could even be very different than humans percieve it if it does exist.



>>>I don't think we've come this far in the debate yet, have we? I mean, all we are discussing is the necessity for a first cause, not specifics such as how it happened. I understand the evidence for "Big Band" (and I'm pretty sure I go with it ), but that's not exactly what were discussing yet<<<

We are discussing the beginning of the universe. It is impossible to know if there was a first cause or not(assuming it isn't proved logically impossible ;) ) because we can not go back before the big bang.


I look forward to your response :)

Karen

[Cadence]

Originally posted by Karen M
Here's the list. I have included explanations as best I can (because, as you know, all it takes is one misunderstanding and the whole debate falls apart and makes no sense ).
1) Existed forever backwards. (Kinda like a ray. A line extends forever in both directions. A ray extends forever in one direction. "Existed forever backwards" would be analogus to a line. This thing existed forever in one direction, but not in the other and thus does not exist now.)
2) Exists forever backwards and forever forewards. (This one is pretty obvious. It says that this thing existed forever with no point at which it did not exist.)
3) Existed forever backwards in intervals. (Same as #1, but has come and gone at regular intervals and now no longer exists.)
4) Exists forever backwards and forever forewards in intervals. (Same as #2, but has come and gone at regular intervals and will continue to oscilate in and out of existence forever.)
5) Exists outside of time. (You have not posited this one, but I will because it is good to be exhaustive. This option says the existence of this thing is not bound by time constraints. It is outside of time and space.) What the heck are you talking about? Why would you believe something other than an actual being exsisted forever? For you to believe in something exsisting forever it will take faith, no matter what it is. Why not come to most logical conclusion that there is a God who created?

BTW the Big Bang theory doesn't work according to science.

[JerryLove]

For you to believe in something exsisting forever it will take faith, no matter what it is. That must be why honest people don't believe so, they speculate at the possibility.

Why not come to most logical conclusion that there is a God who created? I quiver with anticipatation of your support showing that to be the "logical conclusion".

BTW the Big Bang theory doesn't work according to science. What a lovely combination of untrue, unsupported, and off-topic. You forgot to throw in an insult for good measure and make it a complete troll.

[Cadence]

Originally posted by JerryLove
That must be why honest people don't believe so, they speculate at the possibility.Honest people don't have any kind of faith whatsoever?

Originally posted by JerryLove
I quiver with anticipatation of your support showing that to be the "logical conclusion". How is it NOT logical?

Originally posted by JerryLove
You forgot to throw in an insult for good measure and make it a complete troll. I thought I'd leave that for you to do.

[Cadence]

Tell me how, according to the science of math, does nothing plus nothing equal something? Or let's try multiplication. Nothing times nothing equals something. It doesn't work.

[Karen M]

Hello Para :)


>>>What the heck are you talking about?<<<

I didn't write that; I was quoting Aaron ;)


>>>Why would you believe something other than an actual being exsisted forever?<<<

I don't. I simply believe anything that occured before the Big Bang is unknowable at the moment.


>>>For you to believe in something exsisting forever it will take faith, no matter what it is.<<<

Exactly. I don't believe we can know.


>>>Why not come to most logical conclusion that there is a God who created?<<<

Because, from my point of view, God is not the most logical conclusion. :)


>>>BTW the Big Bang theory doesn't work according to science.<<<

Yes it does :)


later,

Karen

[Cadence]

Originally posted by Karen M
I didn't write that; I was quoting Aaron ;)Sorry

Originally posted by Karen M
Exactly. I don't believe we can know.We can't know for sure. That doesn't mean we can't believe. Everyone has faith in something.

Originally posted by Karen M
Because, from my point of view, God is not the most logical conclusion. :).Why?

[JerryLove]

My brain has a little food in it, let's see if I can elaborate so as to better help you understand why I simply called the liogc "silly".

Abstract? Not at all . You said you move yourself. Well, in a manner of speaking, you do (and I would say that this is more abstract than saying your legs move you). But when you look at your motion a little closer, you find that it is your legs that move you. And your legs are moved by muscles and tendons. And your muscles are moved by.... and so on. These are odd abstractions. Let me offer you some more simplistic events and you can offer causes.

When in a vacuum, a proton and positron spontaniously create, then draw together and anhiliate one another back into nothingness, what was the cause?

When a proton leaves the core of a uranium atom in the process of atomic decay, what was the cause?

What cause accellerates a photon to 180,000 miles-per-second?

These things, and may more, occur of their own cumplusion in accordance with the nature of reality. Your "cause and effect" logic is as unsupportable as it is disproveable. I could argue that there is no randomness in the universe. That means that you have no choice in the decisions you make (to use a religious reference, there is no free will) and you could not prove me wrong. Therefore, the conditions of the univervse determin all your thoughs and actions, this would make everything after the universe's inception fixed (and therefore an effect of that cause).

OTOH, you cannot prove that is the case. Randomness may exist and thoughts my have an element of freewill. Also, the use of the word "cause" is very abstrat here.

If I collide some atoms together until I get uranium, then wait for them to decay, did I *cause* the decay? It would not have happened without me, so you could say either "yes" or "no" depending on point of view. So yes, this "cause and effect" logic is abstract.

My premise was that nothing moves itself. I have shown that every part of your body is moved by another. That's your assertion, it has not been "shown", but again, weather this is truw or not depends on the abstraction level of the point of view, and on conclusions not available (such as the existance of free-will)

Oh, and as the person grows, the motion would come from energy stored up in food -- I'm not too sure about this though, 'cause I haven't thought about it enough Now you are talking from a different POV (about energy and the conservation of energy) not about intent and cause.

But from what I know about you, you're always up for figuring things out. And I don't think I've ever seen you end a debate because you feel it's gone too abstract. There has only been one previous discussion on this abstraction level that I have been involved in at all on this board. I usually avoid the discussions I am not interested in from the get-go.

[JerryLove]

Honest people don't have any kind of faith whatsoever? Did I say that? Sounds like you are propping up a straw-man argument.

How is it NOT logical? And now you try reversing burden of proof. You made a statement, you must show some proof of valiidity before demanding refutation.

Tell me how, according to the science of math, does nothing plus nothing equal something? Or let's try multiplication. Nothing times nothing equals something. It doesn't work. Nor is it related to the discussion at hand.

[Cadence]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Nor is it related to the discussion at hand. We're not talking about the origins of the universe?

Originally posted by JerryLove
Did I say that? Sounds like you are propping up a straw-man argument. What were you saying then?

[Cadence]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Nor is it related to the discussion at hand. Who cares. You still didn't answer how those calculations are possible.

[Karen M]

Greetings again Para :)


>>>We can't know for sure. That doesn't mean we can't believe. Everyone has faith in something.<<<

I never said we couldn't believe. I just said that it was logically unknowable and that any belief in this area would be just as unfounded as any other.


>>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Karen M
Because, from my point of view, God is not the most logical conclusion. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?<<<

Because I base my beliefs in science and things that can be proven logically. You can not prove anything supernatural logically or with evidence and God(at least the Christian version) is supernatural(unless you are suggesting a God made up of matter?). Also, no offence, but from my point of view the Christian God is about as likely as Santa Clause :(


I hope I explained that clearly,

Karen

[Cadence]

Originally posted by Karen M


Because I base my beliefs in science and things that can be proven logically. You can not prove anything supernatural logically or with evidence and God(at least the Christian version) is supernatural(unless you are suggesting a God made up of matter?). Also, no offence, but from my point of view the Christian God is about as likely as Santa Clause :(


I hope I explained that clearly,

Karen So you don't have faith in ANYTHING?

Also how is the Big Bang theory logical?

[Karen M]

Hello Para :)


>>>So you don't have faith in ANYTHING?<<<

I try to make my view as coherent and likely as possible by using the least amount of blind faith possible, yes. :) So far I have narrowed it down to logic working(because you must use logic to prove that logic works; but this is a requirement in all worldviews which claim the use of logic) I do use inductions, however, if that is what you are asking?


>>>Also how is the Big Bang theory logical?<<<

It is currently the most scientificly backed theory. On the other hand, I admit am still a bit sceptical of it until I study it more in depth. It is more consistant and in line with science than other theories I have heard though. :)


Karen

[JerryLove]

We're not talking about the origins of the universe? Your question was not discussing the origin of the universe or causality.

What were you saying then? Gee, by what I posted, I must be saying "That must be why honest people don't believe so [something must exist forever], they speculate at the possibility. "

Who cares. You still didn't answer how those calculations are possible. Your proclivity for putting singe thoughts in multiple posts is annoying. You didn't answer how to synthsize polimers, but that's unrelated to the discussion as well.

While it occurs in some math related sciences, I am not aware of a pure math that would allow additions of null values (or mulitplications of null values) to occur, much less occur and yield a result other than another null value. "Zero" is functionally an imaginary number (like root(-1) and infinity). Now tie this into the topic or drop it (or start a new thread on your quandries on mathmatics).

So you don't have faith in ANYTHING? First define "faith" in this context.

Also how is the Big Bang theory logical? By conforming to all the emperical data. How is it not logical?