Eternity

[Diogenes]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Tcg in post #19]

I have never understood the difficulty in postulating the universe has always been (in one form or another). Christians assume this about their 'God.' The notion that everything must have a cause is a colossal and unnecessary assumption. Among other problems the claim that the universe began from nothing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics;
"Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another."

[historia]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

Maybe, but it's hard to tell given how you've framed this discussion.

Since you don't apparently believe this assertion yourself -- and therefore are unable to expand upon it or clarify its terms -- it seems like you're just inviting us to critique a straw man argument here.

For example, I don't think most cosmological arguments -- at least in their strongest form -- claim that the universe "must" have had a beginning. Rather, they assert that various philosophical arguments and cosmogonic evidence point to the universe likely having a beginning.

Perhaps it would be better if you could quote a Christian philosopher making this (or similar) claim so we can actually critique this idea as it is articulated by one of its foremost proponents, rather than this characterization of the idea from a message board critic.

[William]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

It would be intellectually disingenuous to do so while refusing to provide evidence. The claimant has assumed the burden of proof to back up his assertion when asked to do so.


.

It depends upon the assertion as to what the expected evidence required, would be.

The assertion "godidit" doesn't lend itself to any particular type of expected evidence required.

Calling for 'evidence' appears to be disingenuous when the assertion is indistinct...

[Miles]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

It would be intellectually disingenuous to do so while refusing to provide evidence. The claimant has assumed the burden of proof to back up his assertion when asked to do so.


.

It depends upon the assertion as to what the expected evidence required, would be.

How about evidence that backed up the assertion? That's what I would be expecting.

The assertion "godidit" doesn't lend itself to any particular type of expected evidence required.

Really! How about the type of evidence, whatever it may be, that backs up the assertion?

Calling for 'evidence' appears to be disingenuous when the assertion is indistinct...

But it's not indistinct. The assertion quite distinctly says "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;" No if, buts, or maybes.


.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #24]

It depends upon the assertion as to what the expected evidence required, would be.

How about evidence that backed up the assertion? That's what I would be expecting.

I would think so, yes. It would depend on the assertion as to what could be expected to be shown as evidence.

The assertion "godidit" doesn't lend itself to any particular type of expected evidence required.

Really!

Yes.

How about the type of evidence, whatever it may be, that backs up the assertion?

What kind of evidence would anyone realistically expect to be presented, re the assertion "goddidit" being that the assertion itself is rather vague? Perhaps vague evidence would suffice?

Calling for 'evidence' appears to be disingenuous when the assertion is indistinct...

But it's not indistinct. The assertion quite distinctly says "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;" No if, buts, or maybes.

That appears to be indistinct to me. Not the "has always existed, without beginning and without end" because that is clear enough, and can even be applied to the universe [as a claim] - what is vague has to do with the word "God"... perhaps you have some type of image in your mind in relation to this word - and thus also have some type of expectancy re evidence regarding that?

If not - then yes - the assertion is indisticnt....as indistinct as the description of what type of evidence would be acceptable, is...

[Diogenes]

Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?

Maybe, but it's hard to tell given how you've framed this discussion.

Since you don't apparently believe this assertion yourself -- and therefore are unable to expand upon it or clarify its terms -- it seems like you're just inviting us to critique a straw man argument here.

For example, I don't think most cosmological arguments -- at least in their strongest form -- claim that the universe "must" have had a beginning. Rather, they assert that various philosophical arguments and cosmogonic evidence point to the universe likely having a beginning.

Perhaps it would be better if you could quote a Christian philosopher making this (or similar) claim so we can actually critique this idea as it is articulated by one of its foremost proponents, rather than this characterization of the idea from a message board critic.

I didn't think this was disputed. William Paley comes to mind, but I suppose Thomas Aquinas is the most famous. Aquinas makes the BIG assumption that every effect must have a cause. Aquinas argued that there couldn’t be an infinite regression of cause and effect without any fixed starting point. He arbitrarily claimed 'God' was the 'First Mover,' who set the universe in motion without any prior cause. Thus he makes the special pleading that God somehow existed without a 'prior cause.' and 'caused' the universe to exist. This argument, or one of its variations, has been THE prime argument for the existence of a creator God at least from the time of Aristotle.

I have yet to hear or read a convincing argument that supports the assumption that 'everything must have a cause.' This is a claim without support. I have yet to hear a convincing, or even a plausible argument against the idea the universe has always existed. The form may have changed, but of the two choices; 'something from nothing' vs 'something has always been,' the latter is more compelling. MUCH more compelling... at least from the very beginning of time.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #26]

I have yet to hear or read a convincing argument that supports the assumption that 'everything must have a cause.' This is a claim without support. I have yet to hear a convincing, or even a plausible argument against the idea the universe has always existed. The form may have changed, but of the two choices; 'something from nothing' vs 'something has always been,' the latter is more compelling. MUCH more compelling... at least from the very beginning of time.

Since the universe also includes consciousness, if we are to accept that it has always existed - in one form or another - then there should be no problem with also accepting that consciousness has always existed as well.

[JehovahsWitness]

PLEASE NOTE I make no claims here, I am simply hypothetical scenerios.

To me, if someone believes XYZ for everything but ABC, then that's being hypocritical at worst; choosy at best.

This statement seems to make little sense; it seems to be suggesting nothing can be said to be unique

If XYZ is everything that is not the poster, ABC would be the poster. Both could in reality coexist simultateously with no issue. Since it could be argued that uniqueness is an observable property of the world around us, what exactly makes it a theorectical impossibility beyond our universe* ?

[ * ]I usually use conditionals ( ... or suppositions, hypothesis etc ) when discussing in this subforum in order to respect forum guidelines while also avoiding making any absolute claims or assertions for example, that there *is* anything beyond our universe.

[Tcg]

Since it could be argued that uniqueness is an observable properly of the world around us, what exactly makes it a theorectical impossibility beyond our universe* ?

[ * ]I usually use conditionals ( ... or suppositions, hypothesis etc ) when discussing in this subforum in order to respect forum guidelines while also avoiding making any absolute claims or assertions for example, that there *is* anything beyond our universe.

Anything can be argued even that "uniqueness is an observable properly [sic] of the world around us" or that there is a "beyond our universe." Absent any support for either, however, there is little reason to consider either an argument.


Tcg

[Tcg]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #26]

I have yet to hear or read a convincing argument that supports the assumption that 'everything must have a cause.' This is a claim without support. I have yet to hear a convincing, or even a plausible argument against the idea the universe has always existed. The form may have changed, but of the two choices; 'something from nothing' vs 'something has always been,' the latter is more compelling. MUCH more compelling... at least from the very beginning of time.

Since the universe also includes consciousness, if we are to accept that it has always existed - in one form or another - then there should be no problem with also accepting that consciousness has always existed as well.

Sure, there is. It's not much different than claiming that the ice tea I am drinking right now has always had lemon and honey in it ignoring the fact that my son just now added it. Of course all analogies have weaknesses and this one's is that it describes someone adding something to my tea. As far as consciousness goes, there is no reason to assume someone added it to anything. There is no need to postulate an adder nor does it make logical sense to claim that because something includes something now it has always included it. Oddly enough, things change.


Tcg