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 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.

The universe also includes toadstools. According to your 'logic,' toadstools have always existed.
Matter and energy can be changed and transformed.

[historia]

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.

I'm not disputing the fact that certain philosophers have, down through history, made various cosmological arguments for the existence of God. I'm simply asking you to directly quote one so we can assess the argument as they have articulated it, rather than continue to give us your impression of what they have said.

The latter course leads to problems like this:

I have yet to hear or read a convincing argument that supports the assumption that 'everything must have a cause.'

Generally, philosophers (at least the best ones) don't argue that "everything must have a cause." The kalam cosmological argument, for example, asserts that "everything that begins to exist has a cause," which is not the same thing. Nor are defenders of the kalam argument simply "assuming" that premise.

In discussions like this, the details matter.

[Diogenes]

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.

I'm not disputing the fact that certain philosophers have, down through history, made various cosmological arguments for the existence of God. I'm simply asking you to directly quote one so we can assess the argument as they have articulated it, rather than continue to give us your impression of what they have said.

“The existence of a prime mover- nothing can move itself; there must be a first mover. The first mover is called God.”

― Thomas Aquinas St.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/447100 ... ove-itself

... and...

"by historia
Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:13 pm
Forum: Christianity and Apologetics
Topic: Kalam Cosmological Argument
Replies: 78
Views: 5924

... is no single, "original" cosmological argument. Rather, various philosophers and theologians over the millenia -- including Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibnitz, Swinburne, and others -- have developed a family of arguments that have come to be known collectively as the cosmological argument. ..."


Would that be an example of a "characterization of the idea from a message board critic.?"

For Swinburne's "Inductive Cosmological Argument," See:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... .tb00085.x

"... the primary mover at which Aquinas arrived is very different from that of Aristotle; it is in fact the God of Judaism and Christianity."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/prime-mover-philosophy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"cos·mo·log·i·cal ar·gu·ment
/ˌkäzməˌläjəkəl ˈärɡyəmənt/
Learn to pronounce
nounPhilosophy
noun: cosmological argument; plural noun: cosmological arguments

an argument for the existence of God which claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e. are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being which exists independently or necessarily."
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... l+argument

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #30]

[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.

The universe also includes toadstools. According to your 'logic,' toadstools have always existed.
Matter and energy can be changed and transformed.

It is not 'my' logic...
I was following along with the logic presented.

And yes - in one form or another Mycelian has always existed. Matter and energy can be changed and transformed...

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

Q: Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "The universe has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim that consciousness must have had a beginning?

[Diogenes]

Q: Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "The universe has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim that consciousness must have had a beginning?

You are comparing apples to oranges; consciousness to the entire universe. We know how consciousness arises. It comes from the brain. Without neurons, billions of them interacting in trillions of connections, there is no human consciousness. You might as well claim computers always existed.

Of course, if you have some vague, magical/religious or mystical definition of consciousness, ANYthing is possible - it just depends upon what the writer decides. The limit is their imagination. But if we confine ourselves to naturalism, to science, to what can be objectively studied, then no, neither computers, mushrooms, or consciousness always existed.

No one really knows, but apparently some [most?] cannot even conceive of a universe that has existed as long as time. As for organic species, we know they did not exist on Earth until about 3.8 Billion years ago. If you have a theory on the emergence of consciousness without life, without brain matter, without neurons, please share it.

https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/about/life_on_earth.html

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #45]

From another discussion I am having on another forum:

smartcooky: You cannot apply biological analogies to the Big Bang and expect to be taken seriously!!

William: I can and furthermore will continue to use the "seed" analogy as it fits the description nicely enough and is not different from your use of the Sol-System analogy when referring to atoms...

There is no reason whatsoever that we have to ignore the patterns which are obvious and in doing so, exclude these from referential terminology when applying analysis re the given story.

The Mother Like Child...so if anyone wants to be taken seriously re the object that exploded itself into itself to produce what we currently observe and refer to as "the physical universe" then whatever is in the universe and is said to have come from said object, must have existed [as coding] within the Seed of Origin - the object scientists describe as where everything came from.

[Biological life on this planet of ours didn't just accidently happen. Rather it was obviously mindfully achieved.]

So unless someone can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why we cannot refer to something which - as described - is as close to being a "seed" than it is to any other known thing in the universe - it should be taken as seriously as scientist wish us all to take the theory seriously.

Cosmic Yak: Please cite the data- mathematical or observational- that you have found, that fits your description of the formation of the universe. What data do you have to show there is something outside the space/time continuum of the know universe? What predictions can you make, that could be used to prove your ideas?

I use the same data as the scientists produce. As I have explained already, there is no apparent reason as to why the object which exploded, has to be regarded as the only thing that existed, since that constitutes magical thinking [MT].

The obvious alternative to MT is that what is being observed as having a beginning and predicted to eventually end, must therefore be manifesting on a backdrop/stage/fabric/matrix of an eternal nature - physical in essence - yet also inert in its undisturbed state.

Myriad: Seeds contain DNA and intricate biochemical machinery to render the coded DNA sequences into proteins that build the plant as it germinates.

Even if there were also some kind of "idea" or "intention" or other mystical quality imbued in the seed (for which there is no evidence), we know that if you damage or remove the DNA or the biochemical machinery, the seed doesn't grow. You can make unfalsifiable claims that there's more involved than material, but it is certain that the material is necessary for the seed to function as a seed.

What's the "DNA" in the primordial universe? There was no matter and it was too hot and dense for any material pattern to exist at that time.

When we are informed that an object containing everything that is the universe we are experiencing, the analogy of a seed is the closest thing we have in nature which exemplifies what the object was.

Obviously the "Seed of Origin" object cannot be considered to behave exactly like a biological seed here on this planet, because what it produced is cosmic in scale and includes this planet as part of what was manifested from the original coding packed together as it would have been.

The MT involved with this claim that the object was all that existed and will eventually reimagine itself as another Seed of Origin in some far off distant future - perpetually repeating itself as it has done for eternity - splats against the fact-wall of the actual information the germination has thus far poured out which any consciousness in functional form can observe and interpret, depending upon what filters they use to do so.

Furthermore - and to address this:

smartcooky: He is also assuming that since he wants it to be true, it must be true.

At first I was prepared to cut him some slack and treat his musings seriously, but not any more. Terms inferring that "the physical universe must have existed [as coding] within the Seed of Origin" and "Biological life on this planet of ours didn't just accidentality happen. Rather it was obviously mindfully achieved" are simply paraphrased versions of Intelligent Design Dogma.

It has become obvious that he is a JAGA (Just Another "Godidit" Advocate)

It is certainly true that I use the theistic filter as a means of interpreting what is being observed, I also understand that ancient theists had already established in their belief systems the idea of the big bang and their mythology ["lies to children" as Pixel42 referred to such-type stories] came about thousands of years before modern scientists confirmed it to being the case.

I also acknowledge that modern scientists wish to distance themselves from ancient theistic thinking...so they make it appear that the idea is new and discovered by them - which certainly they did discover as something more than just theistic magical thinking - but in their haste to suppress the idea of intelligent design, they gave themselves the right to interpret the discovery in such a manner as to enforce the suppression of the theistic idea...and anything outside of that mind-set and interpretation would be regarded as Windows Of Opportunity which should never be opened, let alone the curtains be drawn...

Throwing "WoO" at the perceived threat, does not make it go away.

Sincerely, I do not view the contradictions of position [theist/non-theist]as overly important at this stage of the game-play . My reasoning for that, is based on the logic that;

IF:
there is a Cosmic Mind
THEN:
Eventually, any species which survives long enough to continue along with the unfolding universe will eventually discover that and invent ways in which to engage.

Our current position is so close to the beginning as to be counted as mostly inconsequential to that future specie-wide discovery and engagement but it is still interesting and pertinent that ignorance branched into theism for it shows the propensity of self-aware consciousness to understand that no matter where it finds itself, it wonders what it is doing there and goes about ways in which to investigate in order to answer the question.

Whereas the non-theistic branch simply wants to take advantage of the situation and leave such questions outside the tightly shut and curtained window... assuming that such a time will never come because there is no Cosmic Mind.

How they know this for sure, has never been explained adequately enough for me to accept their assessment of the situation - and subjectively speaking - my Window of Opportunity [WoO] is wide open and I am finding the sights to see, very interesting.

[otseng]

One has to wonder why one paricipates in a discussion forum if one scampers away at a simple request for clarification, but not responding to a question is your right and mine.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making any personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Difflugia]

By what the Bible tells, God is spirit. Spirit can be something not physical, therefore it is not necessarily bound by laws of physics.

What does that mean with respect to the real world? Can a "spirit" interact with matter? Can it do work? If it's "not necessarily bound by laws of physics," then by what mechanism does it affect the real world?

So, to believe in universe without beginning, it would mean endless loop that has always existed. Without beginning, everything would go around endlessly. I think it is too unlikely to be true.

That's the crux of the OP question. How could that possibly be true for the universe, but not for a god? It's turtles all the way down.

[JehovahsWitness]

FIRSTLY, PLEASE NOTE I make no claims here, I am simply examining hypothetical suppositions..."

So, to believe in universe without beginning, it would mean endless loop that has always existed. Without beginning, everything would go around endlessly. I think it is too unlikely to be true.

That's the crux of the OP question. How could that possibly be true for the universe, but not for a god? It's turtles all the way down.

I am not of the opinion... (and this is not a claims here, just an opinion on a hypothesis) ...I am not of the opinion that there is essentially any difference. Whether is it an individual, conscousness or an infinite loop of universes, it still boils down to infinity.



It would be inconsistent to suppose that the universe can be infitine but a god could not. (That was not a claims it was a comment on a hypothetical supposition)

[JehovahsWitness]

By what the Bible tells, God is spirit. Spirit can be something not physical, therefore it is not necessarily bound by laws of physics.

What does that mean with respect to the real world? Can a "spirit" interact with matter? Can it do work?....

FIRSTLY, PLEASE NOTE I make no claims here, I am simply expressing what I believe the specific bible verse mentioned above by 1213, means "

Biblically* speaking spirits not being bound by the laws of physical means they are not subject to them, it does not mean they cannot use them (if the Queen was not subject tonthe law it would not mean she could not have someone arrêter. This is not a claim just scriptural interpretation, that a spirit, cannot manipulate (or in the biblical Gods case) create anything physical. It means a spirit can defy or manipulate the laws of physics. So ...to answer the question, biblically yes, a spirit can "interact with matter".

...by what mechanism does it affect the real world?

I don't think anyone that is not a spirit can answer that question. (That sentence was not a claim that spirits exist, but a response based on the unspoken premise of the question, which is "presuming they do exist ... by what mechanism does it affect the real world?" ). One might speculate that if all matter is actually energy (E=Mc2) then spirits might manipulate that energy at will.

[ * ] I am ONLY mentioning the bible to show what Christianity says in line with subforum guidelines, not to prove that a statement or story therein is true. ​I am not presenting the bible as authorative or proof of truth and have no intention to add an argument to that end in this subforum See LINKS for details: viewtopic.php?p=213491#p213491