08 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeister…
Err.. No. The universe DID begin. -it just didn’t have a cause and there was no “before” -to say there was a point in time when there was no “before” implies that it began at that point in time.
------------------------hamilton--------------------
Easy , it began roughly 12 billion years ago , I can say pretty much when it began , and by implicati ...[text shortened]... that it just began for no cause from no time , it's just that you don't like the sound of it.
Easy , it began roughly 12 billion years ago , I can say pretty much when it began , and by implication you believe that it just began for no cause FROM no time
…(my emphasis)
Can you see the logical flaw with the end of your statement here? How can it come “FROM” “no time” if at no time there was “no time“? I am not saying the universe came from “no time” because that makes no sense.
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf one says that there is no reason why the universe began then the implication is pretty obvious. It will be by definition an inpenetrable mystery that can never be explained.
[b]Cool. Maybe mysticism/spirituality is not such a bad way of looking at reality after all
I'm sorry, but what does this even mean? If, for example, we conclude that there are currently no "satisfactory" answers or warranted positive beliefs concerning cosmological origins, then where do you think that leaves us, again? Forgive me, but I always ...[text shortened]... cribe. But I wouldn't necessarily call that a "way of looking at reality".[/b]
Hamilton seemed very sure of this (and you didn't have a go at him) but when I drew an obviously logical conclusion from this you are suddenly all ears.
I am only drawing out the logical implications of Hammy's statement.
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHow can it come “FROM” “no time” if at no time there was “no time“?
[b]…
Easy , it began roughly 12 billion years ago , I can say pretty much when it began , and by implication you believe that it just began for no cause FROM no time
…(my emphasis)
Can you see the logical flaw with the end of your statement here? How can it come “FROM” “no time” if at no time there was “no time“? I am not saying the universe came from “no time” because that makes no sense.[/b]
hamilton----------------------------------
By the same argument the above statement must also be flawed , you used the word "was".
08 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…If one says that there is no reason why the universe began then the implication is pretty obvious. It will be by definition an impenetrable mystery that can never be explained. …
If one says that there is no reason why the universe began then the implication is pretty obvious. It will be by definition an inpenetrable mystery that can never be explained.
Hamilton seemed very sure of this (and you didn't have a go at him) but when I drew an obviously logical conclusion from this you are suddenly all ears.
I am only drawing out the logical implications of Hammy's statement.
That’s a logical contradiction -one clearly does not logically follow from the other: if one says that there is no reason why the universe began then, if this is true, the implication is pretty obvious that there is NO mystery because there is NO “why” that needs to be explained.
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterNope!
If one says that there is no reason why the universe began then the implication is pretty obvious. It will be by definition an inpenetrable mystery that can never be explained.
Hamilton seemed very sure of this (and you didn't have a go at him) but when I drew an obviously logical conclusion from this you are suddenly all ears.
I am only drawing out the logical implications of Hammy's statement.
Today is accepted due to the scientific finds and evidence that there is not a specific "reason". But this issue remains open, therefore Tomorrow we may really find out the "reason". So Science will keep up without taking your "definition" as a fact. We just are not satisfied Today with any theological approach and therefore a definition like the one you quoted over here is dismissed. Our ancestors believed "by definition" several things that today are clearly anti-Science and of course not acceptable... But my friend KM once you 'll manage to turn your theological thesis into a stable philosophical hypothesis, well this will be an issue that every atheist, me included, we would like to dig;
08 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is just semantics. I can restate it as:
How can it come “FROM” “no time” if at no time there was “no time“?
hamilton----------------------------------
By the same argument the above statement must also be flawed , you used the word "was".
“How can it come “FROM” “no time” if at no point in time it is the case that there is no time at that point in time ?“
As you see, there is no “was” in the above.
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo only universes can exist/begin without time being a pre-requisite?
This is just semantics. I can restate it as:
“How can it come “FROM” “no time” if at no point in time it is the case that there is no time at that point in time ?“
As you see, there is no “was” in the above.
If as you say that it's meaningless to talk about anything existing/nopn-existing if there is no time , then how did the universe exist/begin? Time itself began without any need for anything. It appears that for you time is independent of and has no need for anything else.
It's almost as if for you time is god-like?
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThis is false and unscientific as well. Just because no explanation is possible does not mean that one cannot ask "why?" or even "why is it that no explanation is possible " or "how could that be"
[b]…If one says that there is no reason why the universe began then the implication is pretty obvious. It will be by definition an impenetrable mystery that can never be explained. …
That’s a logical contradiction -one clearly does not logically follow from the other: if one says that there is no reason why the universe began then, if this is ...[text shortened]... is pretty obvious that there is NO mystery because there is NO “why” that needs to be explained.[/b]
It's not the "why" that begs the question it's the universe. Just because certain things are out of science's reach does not make any questions invalid. Science is supposed to be about asking questions I thought.
However , I also understand that one could say "that's just the way it is and there's no explaining it , there is no why , it just is" .The problem here is that when Theists say this about God we get slaughtered.
For a Theist to say that "God just is" does not mean there is no mystery . To have a mystery one does not need to have a "why?" , the mystery of God is that he just is and the fact that he requires no "why?"
I would point out that I conceive of God as having no beginning and as such I don't have to ask myself why he "began" . The universe is a different matter because it HAS a beginning and for me beginnings are very suggestive of some possible cause/effect scenario. Everything I know that has a beginning also has a cause.
It is that fact that the Universe has a beginning at all that just seems mighty queer to me. The beginning itself makes me want to ask "why?".
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't think so. I for one have never criticized a Christian for saying there is no why unless he is simultaneously (as you do) claiming that a why is a necessary property of everything else. Nor do I criticize Christians for not knowing the answer to something, I merely criticize them when they previously claimed to know the answer, or when the answers they do give are illogical, or have no supporting evidence.
However , I also understand that one could say "that's just the way it is and there's no explaining it , there is no why , it just is" .The problem here is that when Theists say this about God we get slaughtered.
For a Theist to say that "God just is" does not mean there is no mystery . To have a mystery one does not need to have a "why?" , the mystery of God is that he just is and the fact that he requires no "why?"
You sound very sure about that. Where do you get your information from? Did God himself say that he requires no "why" or did you make that bit up yourself?
I would point out that I conceive of God as having no beginning and as such I don't have to ask myself why he "began" . The universe is a different matter because it HAS a beginning and for me beginnings are very suggestive of some possible cause/effect scenario. Everything I know that has a beginning also has a cause.
I have repeatedly asked you to stop perpetuating that lie, yet you persist. At no point have you even attempted deny my claim, you simply wait a few posts then repeat the lie. Its time to simply call you out. You are a liar. You have admitted in this thread that there are things with beginnings that do not have a cause or a 'before'. Will it truly shatter your faith if you admit that your attempt at proving that God exists has failed? Why do you need to resort to lies to support it? Is it really such a central part of your faith?
It is that fact that the Universe has a beginning at all that just seems mighty queer to me. The beginning itself makes me want to ask "why?".
Nothing wrong with that. Its the conclusions that are faulty.
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have no problem with a "why" question. However, I do have a problem with your insistence that the "why" question is intimately tied to finite dimensions.
This is my beef with the circle idea or your idea. The question "why is there a circle?" OR "why is there a universe?" is still valid. This philosophical question does not go away because of your science.
However , you could say there is no "why?" because the universe did not begin and if it did not begin then it is the supreme uncaused foundation of all reality that is eternal without beginning or end.
I see absolutely no reason why one should ask "why" when time is finite, but not ask "why" if time is infinite. I think that is really just your own invention to avoid asking "why" of God, yet hold onto the "why" of the universe in the hope of proving the necessity of God.
08 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…Science is supposed to be about asking questions I thought. .. ...
This is false and unscientific as well. Just because no explanation is possible does not mean that one cannot ask "why?" or even "why is it that no explanation is possible " or "how could that be"
It's not the "why" that begs the question it's the universe. Just because certain things are out of science's reach does not make any questions invalid. mighty queer to me. The beginning itself makes me want to ask "why?".
Not quite. Science is generally about answering questions (as opposed to asking them) -to be more specifically, answering the questions by seeing what the evidence combined with logic says the answers are.
But science doesn’t deal with questions that have no answer.