Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Simply because you say so? I think not. If you had a good argument you would know. You would care. You would either look it up or repeat it. But instead you are throwing in the towel.

No longer when it comes to you, do I care, most especially since I had good arguments and you categorically rejected them.

If something comes into existence then that implies that at one time it was in a state of non-existence.

Secondly, the Law of Causality, in a nutshell, says that whatever has come to be has been caused.

So...in the model of a finite universe -- a universe that had a beginning and will have an end in an atheistic materialistic framework, whatever came into existence at the very beginning must have caused itself since the cause must be within the universe itself. Ditto for evolution. What "evolved" into a state of existence from a state of non-existence that evolution had to have had originated from within itself in an atheistic materialistic worldview.

So therein is the contradiction, Mr. Actor. In such a view, the universe (even if postulated in its tiniest condensed form imaginable) must have existed prior to causing itself to come into existence. Or...if you prefer to state this in evolutionary terms, the universe must have first existed in order to evolve from itself. And herein is the violation of the Law of Noncontradiction. For this law says that a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. But this is precisely what must have happened in this atheistic materialistic model of a finite universe because in atheistic materialism the cause of the universe must be totally natural and within [the universe] itself. The cause cannot transcend the universe.

You have it now? So, even if we say (for the sake of argument) that the "parents" of the universe were one pair of lonely quarks, those quarks had to first exist before it evolved into the finite the universe we know today. But...if they always existed, then the universe cannot be finite, can it? If the pair always existed, then there was no beginning for them, and therefore, no beginning for the universe.

And, of course, this is what you believe. You believe that the universe in its very essence is eternal. But this theory poses other problems, as I have also discussed in the past.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If something comes into existence then that implies that at one time it was in a state of non-existence.

Secondly, the Law of Causality, in a nutshell, says that whatever has come to be has been caused.

So...in the model of a finite universe -- a universe that had a beginning and will have an end in an atheistic materialistic framework, whatever came into existence at the very beginning must have caused itself since the cause must be within the universe itself. Ditto for evolution. What "evolved" into a state of existence from a state of non-existence that evolution had to have had originated from within itself in an atheistic materialistic worldview.

So therein is the contradiction, Mr. Actor. In such a view, the universe (even if postulated in its tiniest condensed form imaginable) must have existed prior to causing itself to come into existence. Or...if you prefer to state this in evolutionary terms, the universe must have first existed in order to evolve from itself. And herein is the violation of the Law of Noncontradiction.

That’s your argument. Arranging it into separate statements we get ..

1. If something comes into existence then that implies that at one time it was in a state of non-existence.
2. Secondly, the Law of Causality, in a nutshell, says that whatever has come to be has been caused.
3. So...in the model of a finite universe -- a universe that had a beginning and will have an end in an atheistic materialistic framework, whatever came into existence at the very beginning must have caused itself since the cause must be within the universe itself.
4. In such a view, the universe (even if postulated in its tiniest condensed form imaginable) must have existed prior to causing itself to come into existence.
5. And herein is the violation of the Law of Noncontradiction.

This is your argument. Correct?

If not then how is it not?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That’s your argument. Arranging it into separate statements we get ..

1. If something comes into existence then that implies that at one time it was in a state of non-existence.
2. Secondly, the Law of Causality, in a nutshell, says that whatever has come to be has been caused.
3. So...in the model of a finite universe -- a universe that had a beginning and will have an end in an atheistic materialistic framework, whatever came into existence at the very beginning must have caused itself since the cause must be within the universe itself.
4. In such a view, the universe (even if postulated in its tiniest condensed form imaginable) must have existed prior to causing itself to come into existence.
5. And herein is the violation of the Law of Noncontradiction.

This is your argument. Correct?

If not then how is it not?

What part of my argument don't you get?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What part of my argument don't you get?

1. What is your thesis, i.e., exactly what are you trying to prove? That is never clearly stated.
2. What are your premises? Also never clearly stated.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

1. What is your thesis, i.e., exactly what are you trying to prove? That is never clearly stated.
2. What are your premises? Also never clearly stated.

Really? You don't get it, do you? In order for something to create itself, it must first exist to do that. But how can it exist when at the same time it doesn't exist!?

My thesis is the Law of Noncontradiction, which states: A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense.

[boxcar]

Here is a syllogism for you, Actor. See if you can follow along.

1. The Law of Causality says: All things that have come to be must have a cause.

2. The Universe came into existence by, in and of itself, according to atheistic materialism.

3. The Universe, therefore, had to have existed and not existed at the same time in the same sense in order to cause itself to change from a state of non-existence to a state of existence.

4. Therefore, the theory of a self-caused Universe violates a law of logic called the Law of Noncontradiction which says: A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense.

Let me know when you have digested this, then we can move on to your next equally lame theory that says the universe, in its very essence, is eternal, i.e having no beginning and no end.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Universe, therefore, had to have existed and not existed at the same time in the same sense in order to cause itself to change from a state of non-existence to a state of existence.

Must I tell you again about the uncertainty principle and how it allows virtual particles to pop in and out of existence?[/I]And once again about the Casimir effect, a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimi...ct#Measurement

The Casimir effect was measured more accurately in 1997 by Steve K. Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Laboratory,[33] and by Umar Mohideen and Anushree Roy of the University of California, Riverside.[34] In practice, rather than using two parallel plates, which would require phenomenally accurate alignment to ensure they were parallel, the experiments use one plate that is flat and another plate that is a part of a sphere with a large radius.

In 2001, a group (Giacomo Bressi, Gianni Carugno, Roberto Onofrio and Giuseppe Ruoso) at the University of Padua (Italy) finally succeeded in measuring the Casimir force between parallel plates using microresonators.[35]

The quantum level seems to contradict much of your 17th century science.
Ever wonder why?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Must I tell you again about the uncertainty principle and how it allows virtual particles to pop in and out of existence?[/I]And once again about the Casimir effect, a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimi...ct#Measurement



The quantum level seems to contradict much of your 17th century science.
Ever wonder why?

But you can't be certain of that! Every wonder why, by the way?

Also, is this what the universe does? Pop into and out of existence? And does this poppin' in and out happen all at once and simultaneously?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But you can't be certain of that! Every wonder why, by the way?

Bull. I am 100x more certain of the uncertainty principle affecting the universe than your hateful teeny tiny unknowing god doing the same.

Better read up.

Anyone who does not grasp the basics of modern science MUST STOP posting of his very own warped, twisted science and crazy things you have mentioned.

Opposing modern science and modern physics is contradicts the laws of logic.

[hcap]

From Scientific American.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...casimir-effec/

To understand the Casimir Effect, one first has to understand something about a vacuum in space as it is viewed in quantum field theory. Far from being empty, modern physics assumes that a vacuum is full of fluctuating electromagnetic waves that can never be completely eliminated, like an ocean with waves that are always present and can never be stopped. These waves come in all possible wavelengths, and their presence implies that empty space contains a certain amount of energy--an energy that we can't tap, but that is always there.

[hcap]

More certainty due to ther uncertainty principle

YouTube (Short URL)

And

YouTube (Short URL)

YouTube (Short URL)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Bull. I am 100x more certain of the uncertainty principle affecting the universe than your hateful teeny tiny unknowing god doing the same.

Better read up.

Anyone who does not grasp the basics of modern science MUST STOP posting of his very own warped, twisted science and crazy things you have mentioned.

Opposing modern science and modern physics is contradicts the laws of logic.

But how can you possibly be certain of anything, since you evolved from the "quantum" level" itself?

Just answer my questions: Did the universe itself pop into out of existence? If not, then you're comparing apples with oranges.

Does your mind pop into and out of existence?

And does this poppin' in and out happen all at once and simultaneously?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Here is a syllogism for you, Actor. See if you can follow along.

1. The Law of Causality says: All things that have come to be must have a cause.

2. The Universe came into existence by, in and of itself, according to atheistic materialism.

3. The Universe, therefore, had to have existed and not existed at the same time in the same sense in order to cause itself to change from a state of non-existence to a state of existence.

4. Therefore, the theory of a self-caused Universe violates a law of logic called the Law of Noncontradiction which says: A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense.

Recall from Logic 101 that an argument must be both valid and sound.. Your argument passes neither test, however I will, for the sake of argument and for the moment, concede its validity and concentrate on showing that it is not sound since that is where it is weakest.

Originally Posted by boxcar

1. The Law of Causality says: All things that have come to be must have a cause.

Define "cause".

Originally Posted by boxcar

2. The Universe came into existence by, in and of itself, according to atheistic materialism.

That is the Hawking-Penrose Theorem. Both Hawking and Penrose (and the scientific community) now reject the Theorem since it does not take quantum theory into account. The Uncertainty Principle guarantees that whether the universe came into existence or not is forever unknowable.

Kudos to Hawking and Penrose for being good scientists and admitting they were wrong. Further kudos for disproving their own theory.

Originally Posted by boxcar

3. The Universe, therefore, had to have existed and not existed at the same time in the same sense in order to cause itself to change from a state of non-existence to a state of existence.

Begging the question. Nothing in your argument so far has demonstrated that the universe caused itself.

Originally Posted by boxcar

4. Therefore, the theory of a self-caused Universe violates a law of logic called the Law of Noncontradiction which says: A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by hcap

The quantum level seems to contradict much of your 17th century science.
Ever wonder why?

?

Originally Posted by boxcar

But you can't be certain of that! Every wonder why, by the way

Also, is this what the universe does? Pop into and out of existence? And does this poppin' in and out happen all at once and simultaneously?

Apparently genesis is incomplete. Your teeny tiny god is not through destroying creation and re-making it on the quantum level.

I think your 17th century world view can not deal with that. Unless you ignore the quantum level.

Oh I forgot, that is exactly what you do!!!

Duh!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Recall from Logic 101 that an argument must be both valid and sound.. Your argument passes neither test, however I will, for the sake of argument and for the moment, concede its validity and concentrate on showing that it is not sound since that is where it is weakest.

Define "cause".

That is the Hawking-Penrose Theorem. Both Hawking and Penrose (and the scientific community) now reject the Theorem since it does not take quantum theory into account. The Uncertainty Principle guarantees that whether the universe came into existence or not is forever unknowable.

Kudos to Hawking and Penrose for being good scientists and admitting they were wrong. Further kudos for disproving their own theory.
Begging the question. Nothing in your argument so far has demonstrated that the universe caused itself.

No, premise begs the question. In atheistic materialism, it is implicitly understood that the cause for a finite universe must be natural, which precludes any possibility for a transcendent (supernatural) cause. (In other words the "crime" took place "inside the room , not outside of it.) Therefore, the the natural cause must be by, in or of the universe (i.e. the room) itself. Ergo, the universe caused itself.

And while the late Prof. Hawking and Mr. Penrose don't have any answers for the origin of the universe, you, conversely, have insisted that the universe is eternal. Have you, too, changed your mind?