The creation of time and space? What!

[shunyadragon]

So? There is a proposed mult-iverse view which is supposed to allow for an eternity without any kind of god.

It is the current state of knowledge of our physical existence that allows for a possible eternal and infinite greater cosmos, and not multi-verse theories.

So? Unless the uncaused existence of what ever sort it is is not identified to be the God, then it is the identity of God. It is certain that an eternal universe which includes temporal existence is not by any means a god.

I as a theist believe in God, the creator, but when one presents arguments for a 'first mover' or 'first cause' based on logic and the evidence we have at present, these argument suck!!!!

The ultimate nature of God, and Creation is beyond punny attempts to prove such things by fallible human logic.

[JimL]

It is the current state of knowledge of our physical existence that allows for a possible eternal and infinite greater cosmos, and not multi-verse theories.




I as a theist believe in God, the creator, but when one presents arguments for a 'first mover' or 'first cause' based on logic and the evidence we have at present, these argument suck!!!!

The ultimate nature of God, and Creation is beyond punny attempts to prove such things by fallible human logic.

If our current knowledge allows for an eternal and infinite greater cosmos, and if there is no logical basis or evidence based argument at present for the existence of a creator or first mover, then why on earth do you believe that there is one, rather than an etenal and infinite greater cosmos?

[37818]

Well yes, this is the argument. There is no need to introduce the concept of a god at all; it is irrelevant and I’m not sure why you persist in doing so.

Yet, theists believe in such a non-existent entity, from the stand point there not being any god of course.

The uncaused existence instead of the self-existent God. Even so, the identity of God is the "self-existent." The uncaused self-conditioned existence is in fact the only thing which qualifies to be called God if there is to be a god. The Hebrew for G-d's Name means "self-existent."

[shunyadragon]

If our current knowledge allows for an eternal and infinite greater cosmos, and if there is no logical basis or evidence based argument at present for the existence of a creator or first mover, then why on earth do you believe that there is one, rather than an etenal and infinite greater cosmos?

The key here is 'I believe,' and acknowledge my fallibility, and the inherent weakness in human logic to effectively demonstrate such.

[37818]

It is the current state of knowledge of our physical existence that allows for a possible eternal and infinite greater cosmos, and not multi-verse theories.

Really? How?

I as a theist believe in God, the creator, but when one presents arguments for a 'first mover' or 'first cause' based on logic and the evidence we have at present, these argument suck!!!!

Please explain your thinking here.

The ultimate nature of God, and Creation is beyond punny attempts to prove such things by fallible human logic.

Really? From a metaphysical view, an uncaused existence of some sort is necessary. And such an uncaused existence has no origin, needs no Creator or God of any sort.

[JimL]

The key here is 'I believe,' and acknowledge my fallibility, and the inherent weakness in human logic to effectively demonstrate such.

Yes, I understand that you believe shunya, but the question was why do you believe, if logic and evidence, fallible though they be, points to an eternal universe? If you are not basing your belief on the logic and evidence of our current scientific knowledge, what then is the basis for your belief?

[JimL]

Yes.

If this is the best you can do, if you are unable to explain in what sense the nature of the uncaused cause, i.e. an eternal universe, would differ from that of the caused, i.e. the temporal effects within it, then you've lost the argument.

[Tassman]

Yet, theists believe in such a non-existent entity, from the stand point there not being any god of course.

The uncaused existence instead of the self-existent God. Even so, the identity of God is the "self-existent." The uncaused self-conditioned existence is in fact the only thing which qualifies to be called God if there is to be a god. The Hebrew for G-d's Name means "self-existent."

This is where we are getting repetitious, i.e. “IF there is to be a god”. You seem to be assuming that there ought to be a god. Why? I can understand such a notion evolving in ancient times as people endeavored to understand what was otherwise utterly incomprehensible. But today scientific methodology has proven to be a far more productive means of understanding the nature of the universe than ancient mythology.

[shunyadragon]

Really? How?

Simply, does not reflect the reason for multi-verse theories. They simply are not developed to explain an existence with nor without God. The physicists and cosmologists of the world are from many religious backgrounds, thesist, atheist, agnostic and others.

Please explain your thinking here.

I do not think there is need for further explanation here. Simply as a theist I do not believe that fallible humans can understand the ultimate nature of the relationship between God and Creation by the limited fallible logic of humans particularly when there is an underlying agenda. Sort of analogous to the Tower of Babel.

Really? From a metaphysical view, an uncaused existence of some sort is necessary. And such an uncaused existence has no origin, needs no Creator or God of any sort.

The fact that contemporary science cannot be used to demonstrate a beginning nor ending of our physical existence does not mean there is not one beyond our abilities to understand one in relationship to God and Creation.

Yes, some sort of uncaused source is necessary, but our fallible questionable logic is unsuitable to a logically argue for one. Based on the present evidence of science, the uncaused cause could be Natural Law.

[37818]

This is where we are getting repetitious, i.e. “IF there is to be a god”. You seem to be assuming that there ought to be a god. Why?

My answer as to why is of little value to you. It being that I know God personally as a Christian having eternal life (John 17:3.)

Now a definitive argument that there is no God is that an uncaused existence which has no origin and as such is in need of no God to exist, is instead of God. So logically unless that ucaused existence is the God, there is none. I believe I understand this because of knowing God and understanding His identity. God's name in the Hebrew means the " self-existent." The only thing which is in fact "self-existent" is the uncaused existence, and nothing else.

[/ I can understand such a notion evolving in ancient times as people endeavored to understand what was otherwise utterly incomprehensible. But today scientific methodology has proven to be a far more productive means of understanding the nature of the universe than ancient mythology.

As you stated this, I agree. Now we may not agree on what is and is not pure mythology. The ancient Hebrews worshiped whom they called the "self-existent" as opposed to other ancients who worshiped things we know from science to be things of nature.

[Tassman]

My answer as to why is of little value to you. It being that I know God personally as a Christian having eternal life (John 17:3.)

So you believe.

Now a definitive argument that there is no God is that an uncaused existence which has no origin and as such is in need of no God to exist, is instead of God. So logically unless that ucaused existence is the God, there is none. I believe I understand this because of knowing God and understanding His identity. God's name in the Hebrew means the " self-existent." The only thing which is in fact "self-existent" is the uncaused existence, and nothing else.

As you stated this, I agree. Now we may not agree on what is and is not pure mythology. The ancient Hebrews worshiped whom they called the "self-existent" as opposed to other ancients who worshiped things we know from science to be things of nature.

Once again, this is a faith position which has no place in science.

[lilpixieofterror]

Odd how you don't see the irony in making this argument Sparko. Atheists and agnostics have been making this same argument against the idea of God, which falls upon deaf ears, for years.

Too bad Jimmy that I don't know of too many theist that argue the idea that God is purely subject to emperical test. Atheist though, love to claim that empirical test are the bench gold standard of all there is, but then again atheist seem to believe an awful lot of things that have absolutely little to no empirical evidence at all (IE the existence of invisible time, an endless amount of universes, time/space always existing, matter always existing, etc). I know that you are a little slow, but I figured that Sparko was showing how inconsistent Tassman (and by extension, many atheist) are when it comes to their belief system. It is as though many close their eyes and simply pretend they are not being inconsistent.

God is a philosophical idea for which there is no verifiable empirical evidence.

Which, of course, I don't know of too many theist that say that empirical evidence is all that is needed. I know you are a little show, but again, Sparko is showing how inconsistent many atheist are in their belief system (IE demanding empirical evidence from theist, while of course, they don't need to present any for their beliefs).

The only difference in the two arguments is that we do have verifiable empirical evidence that the attributes of the material universe, i.e. space, time, energy and matter do exist and so we can more logically infer from this that it exists beyond the bounds of our own particular universe.

Really? And how do we 'logically infer' this? Oh, I know, we assume atheism is true, from the start so we could 'logically infer' that your belief system is true. Quite a circle you have created for yourself there, but perhaps you can explain to everybody why we should 'logically infer' the atheist belief system is true from the start or am I suppose to just accept your belief, right at the start? Again, it is amazing how atheist don't want theist assuming their belief system, while of course, they will assume theirs are true and demand that theist meet burdens they themselves refuse to make.

But there is no verifiable empirical evidence whatsoever supporting the idea of an immaterial creator.

And there is no verifiable empirical evidence, whatsoever, that your beliefs have to be assumed from the start. I love fundy atheist, you guys are so funny in how inconsistent and totally clueless you guys really are.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I understand that you believe shunya, but the question was why do you believe, if logic and evidence, fallible though they be, points to an eternal universe? If you are not basing your belief on the logic and evidence of our current scientific knowledge, what then is the basis for your belief?

This has been covered many times in many ways, but nonetheless my belief in being a theist is related to the witness to the world of the Baha'i Faith and its witness of preknowledge and writings that relate to nature of the universe in today's world. It is not a rigid uncompromising blind belief without considering the possibility of alternatives, as many in traditional religions today assume. The following again outlines the logic of the foundations of my belief.

Assumptions that form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe. A great deal of debate takes place on beliefs and differences without understanding the underlying assumptions of why people believe. Some of my basic beliefs are included. The Baha'i principle of the 'Independent Investigation of Truth lies at the foundation of the following.

The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to an a priori assumption on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.

The third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.

The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.

The fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.

The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. This is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.

I believe this 'Source' some call God(s) exists. I believe in Revelation as the continuous evolving, and changing human knowledge of God that never ends, and it does not result in the transmission of absolute knowledge and doctrine of the nature of God. Revelation comes through the Messiah, and through the human mind through communion with God. Religious beliefs reflect the culture and times of the Revelation believed. Creation and Revelation are continuous processes and intimately related. Religious beliefs are the human view of the Divine, not Divine knowledge of absolutes.

[37818]

So you believe.

And you do not have belief?

Once again, this is a faith position which has no place in science.

You are playing a word game with the word "faith." Science involves faith and belief. Faith in the science of scientists who do the experments. And belief in such findings.

Now a metaphysical issue remains. That there is an uncaused existence. Do you agree or disagree?

That there is fundamental order for which there is causes and effects.

That all known causes and effects are temporal and finite. Actions causes reaction.

We have a known universe which at this time seems to have an origin some 13.7 billion years ago. Hardly eternal.

[37818]

If this is the best you can do, if you are unable to explain in what sense the nature of the uncaused cause, i.e. an eternal universe, would differ from that of the caused, i.e. the temporal effects within it, then you've lost the argument.

Uncaused is eternal and unchangable. Caused things are temporal and are subject to change. Uncaused is never a caused thing. The universe since it consists of temporal things is a caused thing and NOT eternal. To argue an eternal universe is a metaphysical argument requiring an uncaused existence to have been prior to any caused existence for which our universe is known. (Thought to be 13.7 billion years old, that is NOT eternal.)