Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You are making the claim that there is a first mover. The burden of proof is yours.

Apparently it is since you obviously do not understand what I said. Have you ever taken, and passed, a course in calculus?

It's a short book. Only 227 short pages. How long is the Bible? How long is Aquinas's Summa Theologiae?

By the way, did you not say no one was reading my posts? I seem to have at least two readers.

So, you're saying there is no such thing as a "First Mover"? Well, golly gee whiz, Mr. Whiz Kid, if there's no such animal then this can only mean is that the best the mighty men of scientism can do to explain the genesis of the universe is to fall back on infinite regress (which really is no explanation), since they cannot identify a First Mover. You see...the buck doesn't stop with your beloved Big Firecracker theory, since something must have caused that little explosion.

The bible repeats itself a often since it's original audience covered an historical span of about 1,500 years give or take. But how many "science" books have been written to try to explain the origin of the universe. The volume of the bible pales by comparison to the verbosity of all those many books.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, you're saying there is no such thing as a "First Mover"?

No. I'm taking no position either way on that hypothesis. Insufficient data at this time.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, golly gee whiz, Mr. Whiz Kid, if there's no such animal then this can only mean is that the best the mighty men of scientism ...

Ad hominem!

Originally Posted by boxcar

... can do to explain the genesis of the universe is to fall back on infinite regress (which really is no explanation), ...

Why not? Are you saying that the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is incorrect?

Originally Posted by boxcar

... since they cannot identify a First Mover. You see...the buck doesn't stop with your beloved Big Firecracker theory, since something must have caused that little explosion.

It was not an explosion. It was an expansion. We've covered that before.

If, for the sake of argument only, we accept the hypothesis that there was a first mover there is no evidence that said first mover was a god rather than some yet to be discovered scientific principle.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But how many "science" books have been written to try to explain the origin of the universe.

i don't know. You tell me.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The volume of the bible pales by comparison to the verbosity of all those many books.

Your claim. The burden of proof is yours.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No. I'm taking no position either way on that hypothesis. Insufficient data at this time.

Ad hominem!

Why not? Are you saying that the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is incorrect?

It was not an explosion. It was an expansion. We've covered that before.

If, for the sake of argument only, we accept the hypothesis that there was a first mover there is no evidence that said first mover was a god rather than some yet to be discovered scientific principle.

i don't know. You tell me.

Your claim. The burden of proof is yours.

In the KJV there are 783, 137 words. If one can type 60 w.p.m. (average speed for a proficient typist), it would take that person 217.5 hours to type the bible. In other words, a little over 9 days. With all the science-related books out there in the world that postulate the origin of the universe, my statement that the high priests of the religion of scientism are infinitely more verbose than the bible's modest number of 40 writers is eminently reasonable.

After you tell me in layman's terms what the "fundamental theorem of calculus" concluded about the origin of the universe, I'll give you my opinion on its correctness.

And why does science call the expansion of the universe the Big Bang? Was this expansion noisy? Was anyone around to hear it? To record it?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In the KJV there are 783, 137 words. If one can type 60 w.p.m. (average speed for a proficient typist), it would take that person 217.5 hours to type the bible. In other words, a little over 9 days. With all the science-related books out there in the world that postulate the origin of the universe, my statement that the high priests of the religion of scientism ...

Must you use pejoratives?

Originally Posted by boxcar

... are infinitely more verbose than the bible's modest number of 40 writers is eminently reasonable.

What has that to do with the subject at hand?

Originally Posted by boxcar

After you tell me in layman's ...

Layman's terms are inadequate.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... terms what the "fundamental theorem of calculus" concluded about the origin of the universe, ...

Every time I solve a problem using integral calculus I use the fundamental theorem of calculus. That involves infinite regress, ergo, infinite regress is not only possible, it is common.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... I'll give you my opinion on its correctness.

Are you qualified to give an opinion?

Originally Posted by boxcar

And why does science call the expansion of the universe the Big Bang?

That's what Hoyle called it. The rest of the scientific community picked it up and ran with it. They had to call it something.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Was this expansion noisy? Was anyone around to hear it? To record it?

Was anyone around to record the Genesis account? If you say God was around then you a making a circular argument since the question at hand is whether God exists.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Must you use pejoratives?

What "high priests"?

What has that to do with the subject at hand?

Short memory span, heh? It has to do with the fact that fools tend to multiply words much faster than rabbits multiply rabbits.

Layman's terms are inadequate.

Okay...so it's only the high priests who can understand this stuff -- but they can't even explain it in layman's terms. It's all in a lingo to which they're privy?

Every time I solve a problem using integral calculus I use the fundamental theorem of calculus. That involves infinite regress, ergo, infinite regress is not only possible, it is common.

That's nice. So...if the origin of the universe is "infinite regress", this means the universe is a perpetual motion machine. And since infinite regress is as common as the common cold, I take it that in the real world beyond probabilities, you could rattle off how many examples of perpetual motion machines/bodies in actual existence? How many can be observed?

Are you qualified to give an opinion?

Sure, why not?

That's what Hoyle called it. The rest of the scientific community picked it up and ran with it. They had to call it something.

I could have picked a lot better names. The silent unfolding, for example. After all, who was around to hear anything, anyhow?

[qutoe]Was anyone around to record the Genesis account? If you say God was around then you a making a circular argument since the question at hand is whether God exists.[/QUOTE]

No, the question at hand is can science identify a First Mover? I never said the First Mover has to be God. All I'm looking for is an uncaused cause. Therefore, since God created the universe, I'd say he's in a great position to give an account to his prophets. But many eyewitnesses does scientism does have, again?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What "high priests"?

Scientism. The word is always used pejoratively.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Short memory span, heh? It has to do with the fact that fools ...

Ad hominem!

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay...so it's only the high priests who can understand this stuff --

Anyone who puts in the effort can understand it. I've pointed out an easily read book.

Originally Posted by boxcar

That's nice. So...if the origin of the universe is "infinite regress", ....

Who says the universe had an origin? I could have always been here. Scientifically that's a question that has yet to be decided. The big bang is not necessarily the beginning of the universe.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... this means the universe is a perpetual motion machine.

No it does not. A "perpetual motion machine" is a machine which creates more energy than it consumes. The universe is in "perpetual motion" but it neither creates nor consumes energy. The Law of Conservation of Energy guarantees this. Ergo, the universe is not a perpetual motion machine.

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, the question at hand is can science identify a First Mover?

No, the question at hand is whether or not any deity exists. Until that can be answered this entire thread is pointless

Originally Posted by boxcar

I never said the First Mover has to be God.

That's what Aquinas said, and it is Aquinas's argument I was addressing.

Originally Posted by boxcar

All I'm looking for is an uncaused cause. Therefore, since God created the universe, ...

Circular argument.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But many eyewitnesses does scientism does have, again?

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence. You cannot even prove that your eyewitnesses existed.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Scientism. The word is always used pejoratively.

Ad hominem!

Anyone who puts in the effort can understand it. I've pointed out an easily read book.

Who says the universe had an origin? I could have always been here. Scientifically that's a question that has yet to be decided. The big bang is not necessarily the beginning of the universe.

No it does not. A "perpetual motion machine" is a machine which creates more energy than it consumes. The universe is in "perpetual motion" but it neither creates nor consumes energy. The Law of Conservation of Energy guarantees this. Ergo, the universe is not a perpetual motion machine.

No, the question at hand is whether or not any deity exists. Until that can be answered this entire thread is pointless

That's what Aquinas said, and it is Aquinas's argument I was addressing.

Circular argument.

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence. You cannot even prove that your eyewitnesses existed.

So, then tell us: What else in the universe is in perpetual motion but neither creates or consumes energy. Must be plenty of things, right?

And eyewitnesses are infinitely more reliable than no witnesses. No witnesses can see evil, speak evil or hear evil. At least with witnesses there's a chance of getting to the truth. With no witnesses you're left with just inferences.

And if no deity exists, then neither you or any one else in the religion of scientism can offer a rationale, reasonable or logical explanation for the origin of the universe. To postulate infinite regression as the reason for the universe's existence is analogous to saying that something is the way it is because it's always been that way. In both cases, it's an absurd non-answer. In fact, what makes them absurd is that they're both circular! (The universe is because it has always been that way.)

You see, the high priests of scientism need to come with a physical first mover -- a physical uncaused cause for the universe, and be able to prove it. Otherwise, all other explanations are non-answers.

[Buckeye]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So where did it come from in the first place?

I rest my case.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, then tell us: What else in the universe is in perpetual motion but neither creates or consumes energy. Must be plenty of things, right?

Wrong. There is only one thing, viz. the universe in its entirety. And it's the universe in its entirety that we are talking about. Once you divide the universe into two or more parts you are postulating a boundary across which energy can be transmitted, ergo, none of the components are in perpetual motion.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And eyewitnesses are infinitely more reliable than no witnesses. No witnesses can see evil, speak evil or hear evil. At least with witnesses there's a chance of getting to the truth. With no witnesses you're left with just inferences.

You have more than inferences. You have observation and intellect.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And if no deity exists, then neither you or any one else in the religion of scientism can offer a rationale, reasonable or logical explanation for the origin of the universe.

There is no reason to assume that the universe had an origin rather than having always existed. You had an origin. You have not always existed. You are extrapolating your limited experience onto the entire universe.

Your arguments have become repetitive. I don't think there is anything left to be said on this subject.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So where did it come from in the first place?

I rest my case.

See post #9294.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So where did it come from in the first place?

I rest my case.

What "case"? I didn't know you had one.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Wrong. There is only one thing, viz. the universe in its entirety. And it's the universe in its entirety that we are talking about. Once you divide the universe into two or more parts you are postulating a boundary across which energy can be transmitted, ergo, none of the components are in perpetual motion.

In other words, there is nothing in the universe analogous to its supposed perpetual motion that neither consumes or creates energy? How convenient. This is a great example of creating a fairy tale out of whole cloth.

You have more than inferences. You have observation and intellect.

But no one was around to observe the beginning. Therefore, the only thing intellect can do is make inferences.

There is no reason to assume that the universe had an origin rather than having always existed. You had an origin. You have not always existed. You are extrapolating your limited experience onto the entire universe.

Your arguments have become repetitive. I don't think there is anything left to be said on this subject.

You're right. After all, atheistic materialism is as intellectually impoverished as the Democratic Republic of the Congo is financially bankrupt.

Thanks for playing, though. The motto I made up for the high priests of scientisme fits you to a tee: The universe is because it has always been this way. Can't get any more circular than this! The model of Theistic Creationism at least avoids this dark pit!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

Your arguments have become repetitive. I don't think there is anything left to be said on this subject.

For at the last 10 or so years.

Boxcr continues to assume the universe as a whole acts the same some of it's parts. As Aristotle did

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...of-Composition

Fallacy of Composition

(also known as: composition fallacy, exception fallacy, faulty induction)

Description: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.

Logical Form:

A is part of B.

A has property X.

Therefore, B has property X.

Oops, this too is a repetition discussed more than once ion the last ten years

Nothing will ever change on this thread. Boxcar will only stroke his own monstrous ego. Religion is not about that

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

For at the last 10 or so years.

Boxcr continues to assume the universe as a whole acts the same some of it's parts. As Aristotle did

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...of-Composition

Fallacy of Composition

(also known as: composition fallacy, exception fallacy, faulty induction)

Description: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.

Logical Form:

A is part of B.

A has property X.

Therefore, B has property X.

Oops, this too is a repetition discussed more than once ion the last ten years

Nothing will ever change on this thread. Boxcar will only stroke his own monstrous ego. Religion is not about that

Well, well...lookie who has ventured back into the thread that he has often mockingly said is deader than a door nail. How often can a person be wrong and still ignore his own willful ignorance? More than a few posts have been written in your absence, Mr. 'cap, in case you haven't noticed.

Now...if you can do some very heavy weight lifting and move your own "monstrous ego" aside for a moment perhaps you can learn what is to follow. When Actor says that the universe is eternal, he unwittingly has made a statement about the nature of the universe. He has made a statement about the essence of something. He has made a statement about a thing's attributes or properties by which a thing can be placed into its proper class or identified as being what is. If the universe is eternal, as Actor claims, then the universe in its very essence is pure existence. It has never not existed and it never will cease to exist.

Secondly, the universe by definition is the totality of the whole body of things and phenomena observed and postulated. The universe by definition is [/b]all-inclusive[/b]. The universe embraces all things observed and postulated. Therefore, to exclude any integral component of the universe is to no longer be discussing the universe. To exclude, for example, any plant life, animal life, sea life or human life or anything else from the universe amounts to equivocation, since the primary definition of "universe" is exceedingly broad.

So, you and Actor can pick your poison. If Actor is going to insist that the universe is this infinite, eternal, timeless entity --pure existence that must be characterized by no intermissions or interruptions, then he's making a statement about its nature or essence. Yet, we constantly observe in this universe things that go out of existence, and things that come into existence; therefore, we see immediately that Actor's proposition violates two laws of logic: The Law of Identity and the Law of Noncontradiction.

On the other hand, if you and your bud Actor do not accept the definition of "universe" and wish to substitute your own, then Actor cannot be talking about the universe as commonly defined and understood. He's talking about his own limited version of what he thinks the universe is. And the only reason he wants to reinvent what the universe is is due to what I just said in the foregoing paragraph. You and he would both be equivocating to try to avoid the force of the two above mentioned laws of logic.

Happy New Year, by the way!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In other words, there is nothing in the universe analogous to its supposed perpetual motion that neither consumes or creates energy?

If you are going to inject the word "analogous" into it then I refer you to the works of Simon Stevin, Galileo Galilei, Christiaan Huygens, Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton. I'm fairly certain you can find their books on Amazon.