Religion III

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by Actor

As I explained the universe is infinitely old. That means they did not come from anywhere. They have always existed and always will.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. *
Premise 2: The universe began to exist. **
Conclusion: The universe has a cause. ***

*For if things did not come into being that way, then our world would be a wild spree of things popping into existence like magic.

** Today the scientific consensus is that the universe did have a beginning roughly 14 billion years
ago.
***So the cause of the universe must be something beyond the universe.It must be transcendent (beyond matter, space energy and time.). We call that God.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since you think the universe is eternal, then it must be pure existence in its very essence, correct? It has no beginning or end, right?

Define "pure" and "essence."

[Actor]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. *
Premise 2: The universe began to exist. **

Can you prove either of these premises?

Originally Posted by porchy44

*For if things did not come into being that way, then our world would be a wild spree of things popping into existence like magic.

(1) Prove it.
(2) Doesn't quantum mechanics predict exactly that?

Originally Posted by porchy44

** Today the scientific consensus is that the universe did have a beginning roughly 14 billion years ago.

But the so-called consensus is not unanimous. That model, as I pointed out, does not conform to general relativity.

Originally Posted by porchy44

***So the cause of the universe must be something beyond the universe.It must be transcendent (beyond matter, space energy and time.). We call that God.

Why call it God? Why not the Higgs Boson? Why should it have attributes like jealousy and a need to be worshipped?

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by Actor

Can you prove either of these premises?
(1) Prove it.
(2) Doesn't quantum mechanics predict exactly that?
But the so-called consensus is not unanimous. That model, as I pointed out, does not conform to general relativity.
Why call it God? Why not the Higgs Boson? Why should it have attributes like jealousy and a need to be worshipped?

When some people want me to prove a position (like God's existence) I think they expect an argument or evidence that would convince anyone who reads it. That reminds me of the philosopher David Lewis who said such proofs "would be a spell, not an argument.” -Trent Horn

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Define "pure" and "essence."

Exhibit A:

Main Entryure
Pronunciation:*py*r
Function:adjective
Inflected Formur£er ; pur£est
Etymology:Middle English pur, from Old French, from Latin purus; akin to Old High German fowen to sift, Sanskrit pun*ti he cleanses, Middle Irish *r fresh, new
Date:14th century


2 a : being thus and no other : SHEER, UNMITIGATED *pure folly* b (1) : ABSTRACT, THEORETICAL (2) : A PRIORI *pure mechanics* c : not directed toward exposition of reality or solution of practical problems *pure literature* d : being nonobjective and to be appraised on formal and technical qualities only *pure form*
3 a (1) : free from what vitiates, weakens, or pollutes (2) : containing nothing that does not properly belong
~ÿ


EXHIBIT B:

Main Entry:es£sence
Pronunciation:*e-s*n(t)s
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin essentia, from esse to be— more at IS
Date:14th century

1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being b : the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence c : the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is
2 : something that exists : ENTITY

EXHIBIT C:

Main Entry:1ac£ci£den£tal
Pronunciation:*ak-s*-*den-t*l
Function:adjective
Date:14th century

1 : arising from extrinsic causes : INCIDENTAL, NONESSENTIAL
2 a : occurring unexpectedly or by chance b

Enjoy.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why must infinite regress be a non-answer? Any why must infinity be regressive? Aquinas rejects infinity in his argument yet infinity is exactly what he is trying to prove, viz., an infinite being. That's circular reasoning.

Let's talk about origins. Let's begin with the following which any physics professor will agree with.

Suppose we were able to observe a person falling into a black hole. It is a relatively simple calculation to compute how long it would take before this person reached the boundary of the black hole (a.k.a. the event horizon) and be destroyed. However, Einstein proved that time is not the same for all observers. This fact had been proven through a multitude of experiments over the last century (the latest being the discovery of gravity waves).

Of particular interest is this fact: the stronger the gravitational field the slower time proceeds. This can be demonstrated with atomic clocks. Take two clocks at street level and set them to the same time. Now take one to the top of the Empire State Building and then bring it back down. The clock which made the trip will show a time that is later than the one which remained at street level because it was taken to a place where gravity is weaker.

Now let's get back to the guy falling into a black hole. What does this event look like from his point of view? The calculations are now a lot different. How long does it take for him to reach the event horizon. The answer is forever. He dies of old age when he's still quite far from the event horizon.

Now science predicts the existence of white holes. So far we have detected only one, viz., the universe itself. But it works exactly the same as a black hole except it runs backwards.

This is where my fellow scientists have made a mistake. They will tell you that the universe is about 14 billion years old, but they have made this calculation as though they were observing the universe from outside. Obviously it does not work that way. As the universe expands time speeds up. There is no time in the distant past where time started. The universe is infinitely old. Accept it. Aquinas was wrong.

For the nth time, Aquinas thought one could reason to an eternal universe, citing infinite regress. What he believed from divine revelation, was that the universe was finite. Most importantly, that creation was not "change", but creation from no preexistent matter. When one grasps this, one understands creation to be a category error the scientist (Why is there something rather than nothing?), but not for the philosopher/metaphysician. An eternal universe of matter, would still need a creator.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since you think the universe is eternal, then it must be pure existence in its very essence, correct?

Whatever. I do not find your definitions helpful.

Originally Posted by boxcar

It has no beginning or end, right?

Right. Although both time and space could be cyclical.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

An eternal universe of matter, would still need a creator.

Why?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by porchy44

When some people want me to prove a position (like God's existence) I think they expect an argument or evidence that would convince anyone who reads it.

That would be nice. But some people lack the capacity.

Originally Posted by porchy44

That reminds me of the philosopher David Lewis who said such proofs "would be a spell, not an argument.” -Trent Horn

David Lewis is entitled to his opinion.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

For the nth time, Aquinas thought one could reason to an eternal universe, citing infinite regress. What he believed from divine revelation, was that the universe was finite. Most importantly, that creation was not "change", but creation from no preexistent matter. When one grasps this, one understands creation to be a category error the scientist (Why is there something rather than nothing?), but not for the philosopher/metaphysician. An eternal universe of matter, would still need a creator.

Why? Could you elaborate more?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Whatever. I do not find your definitions helpful.
Right. Although both time and space could be cyclical.

Of course you don't. When I tell you to look up your own definitions in the context of our discussion you don't that find that helpful. But when I supply them, you don't find those helpful either.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why?

For the philosopher/metaphysician, creation is not addressing necessarily a temporal beginning, but the reality of existence itself- the universe's origin. Something exists from nothing (ex nihilo); from no preexisting matter...No Thing, requiring a Necessary Being that just is existence.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why? Could you elaborate more?

See #7792.

I would suggest that for you and me, Genesis is describing the theological (not scientific) fact of creation by God, from nothing that existed apart from Himself. Change, such as the (figurative, IMO) language describing the shaping of Adam from clay, is change in matter, not creation from nothing.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

See #7792.

I would suggest that for you and me, Genesis is describing the theological (not scientific) fact of creation by God, from nothing that existed apart from Himself. Change, such as the (figurative, IMO) language describing the shaping of Adam from clay, is change in matter, not creation from nothing.

Sorry, Box. #7992. It's late. Can't see anymore.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course you don't. When I tell you to look up your own definitions in the context of our discussion you don't that find that helpful.

If I look up my own definitions you would say I have it wrong and that is not what you meant. You used the word. It's up to you to define it.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But when I supply them, you don't find those helpful either.

In your post you used "es£sence." The "£" is not part of the word. Your entire post is full of this sort of thing. It's obvious that you are obfuscating. You are not trying to communicate. Just the opposite. You are trying to muddy the waters.