Three irrefutable miracles.

[37818]

You'd better think that one over again 37818!

What does natural law entail? How can it precede existing? It cannot.

[shunyadragon]

What does natural law entail? How can it precede existing? It cannot.

Natural Law is what determines the outcomes of all possible cause and effect events.

It is the possibility that Natural Law is eternal with our eternal physical existence where nothing precedes our physical existence nor Natural Law.

Nothing precedes the eternal.

[JimL]

What does natural law entail? How can it precede existing? It cannot.

Natural law, is not a thing in itself, it is discriptive of existence, not its cause.

[shunyadragon]

Natural law, is not a thing in itself, . . .

True.

it is discriptive of existence, not its cause.

Our theories, hypothesis, and Natural Laws are descriptive of the nature of our physical existence, and the ultimate Natural Law(s) that determine the outcome of all cause and effect outcomes. It may be described as a cause.

[JimL]

True.



Our theories, hypothesis, and Natural Laws are descriptive of the nature of our physical existence, and the ultimate Natural Law(s) that determine the outcome of all cause and effect outcomes. It may be described as a cause.

I would say that the inherent nature of existence, i.e natural law, is the cause of the forms that the self same existence takes.

[Tassman]

Uncaused existence is one thing. Universe might be understood include this. But the universe is more. There are two definitions for universe, 1) All created things. 2) Everything. This latter meaning would include the uncaused existence besides everything else.

The notion of "created things" is an assumption which carries explainable baggage. It is more parsimonious to simply say that the universe is eternal and uncaused, i.e. it just "is". There is no good reason to think otherwise.

[37818]

The notion of "created things" is an assumption which carries explainable baggage. It is more parsimonious to simply say that the universe is eternal and uncaused, i.e. it just "is". There is no good reason to think otherwise.

No. The universe is made up with caused things. If we define the universe to mean everything, then it would included uncaused existence. So that the universe on the whole would be uncaused from the stand point that uncaused existence is a part of it. As for the caused things, there would be no first cause. And entropy would only apply to a closed system. As supposed that our known universe has a beginning, the evidence seems to support. But does not prove that there was nothing prior to it in some way we humans on the whole do not yet know.

[Tassman]

No. The universe is made up with caused things. If we define the universe to mean everything, then it would included uncaused existence. So that the universe on the whole would be uncaused from the stand point that uncaused existence is a part of it. As for the caused things, there would be no first cause. And entropy would only apply to a closed system. As supposed that our known universe has a beginning, the evidence seems to support. But does not prove that there was nothing prior to it in some way we humans on the whole do not yet know.

The laws and constants of physics cease to apply during the first nanoseconds of the Planck Epoch. "In the time before the first 10-44 seconds of the Universe, or the Planck Epoch, the laws of physics as we know them break down; the predictions of General Relativity become meaningless as distance scales approach the Planck length at which random quantum mechanical fluctuations dominate. Most particle physics models predict that during this epoch the four fundamental forces were combined into one unified force. Very little else is known about the early part of this era, and the mystery it poses is perhaps the central question in modern physics."

http://www.universeadventure.org/era...plankepoch.htm

So we just don't know at this stage. But there's no need to assume that therefore god-did-it, that is merely an Argument from Ignorance..

[JimL]

No. The universe is made up with caused things.

Right, and the caused things, the effects, are all part of one and the same universe, not things distinct from it. When effects come to their end, the substance of which they are formed continues to exist. It's that substance which you seem to be mistaking for a god.

[kiwimac]

It's not that those other Christians reject the 66 books; it's that they esteem more books than 66.

Yup, the RC and EO church have 73 books and the Copts have over 80. Their canon is just as good as ours.

[shunyadragon]

No. The universe is made up with caused things. If we define the universe to mean everything, then it would included uncaused existence. So that the universe on the whole would be uncaused from the stand point that uncaused existence is a part of it. As for the caused things, there would be no first cause. And entropy would only apply to a closed system. As supposed that our known universe has a beginning, the evidence seems to support. But does not prove that there was nothing prior to it in some way we humans on the whole do not yet know.

The evidence does not support our universe, and neither our physical existence, had a beginning. This is at present unknown.

Tassman gave a good brief description, and I have responded to this in the past too.

[37818]

The laws and constants of physics cease to apply during the first nanoseconds of the Planck Epoch. "In the time before the first 10-44 seconds of the Universe, or the Planck Epoch, the laws of physics as we know them break down; the predictions of General Relativity become meaningless as distance scales approach the Planck length at which random quantum mechanical fluctuations dominate. Most particle physics models predict that during this epoch the four fundamental forces were combined into one unified force. Very little else is known about the early part of this era, and the mystery it poses is perhaps the central question in modern physics."

http://www.universeadventure.org/era...plankepoch.htm

So we just don't know at this stage. But there's no need to assume that therefore god-did-it, that is merely an Argument from Ignorance..

The classic god-did-it argument is based on the assertion that there must be some kind of first cause. The presupposed denial that there could not be in any way be no first cause. And that uncaused cause to be God.

Now for the genuine Christian, they know. And the uncaused cause of anything is God's Logos.

[shunyadragon]

The classic god-did-it argument is based on the assertion that there must be some kind of first cause. The presupposed denial that there could not be in any way be no first cause. And that uncaused cause to be God.

Now for the genuine Christian, they know. And the uncaused cause of anything is God's Logos.

'Classic God?!?!' that's a charmer.

The denial is not that 'there could not be in any way no first cause,' The denial is that this first cause must be God, and that Natural Law is possibly the first cause.

[37818]

'Classic God?!?!' that's a charmer.

The denial is not that 'there could not be in any way no first cause,' The denial is that this first cause must be God, and that Natural Law is possibly the first cause.

The affirmation is John 1:3.

[shunyadragon]

The affirmation is John 1:3.

So what?!?!?! Does not address the topic of the thread.

The denial is not that 'there could not be in any way no first cause,' The denial is that this first cause must be God, and that Natural Law is possibly the first cause.