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?

[TRANSPONDER]

Aquinas is making the two mistakes of all Cosmological arguments, including Kalam, Plantinga's Ontological arguments and in fact all Gap for God and I/D arguments.

(1) He does not understand how everything works. Nobody does regarding the Cismos and how it came to be. So making assumptions about it based on a limited humans perspective is pointless.

The second and the unarguable one is the killer; the Leap of Faith from 'somebody must have made everything' to 'That somebody is God' is invalid. One can understand it when everyone arounde beleived it and if they didn't you either declared a crusade or burned them, but it won't wash now.

But I continues to be one of the big three arguments for a religion (because Muslims do it, too)

"Who made everything, then?"

"The Bible is true."

"We need religion, true or not."

Oh, I know how it works:

First prove that an intelligent will caused everything, then call it 'God' (just for convenience), then pretend that (Bible)god has been proved.

I don't know why we let 'em get away with it.

[historia]

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.

Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Cutting through the verbal barrage, he claims everything must be moved by something

No he doesn't. He says rather clearly that "in the world some things are in motion," and those things must be ultimately 'moved' by the first mover.

By rephrasing his argument to "everything" (including presumably God) "must be moved by something," you are creating the logical fallacy yourself.

[historia]

Will this from Craig do?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument

Sure. You are the one making the claim here, so I leave it to you to marshal your evidence.

For example, WLC offers, "Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will."
This is just another, less ingenuous way of stating what Aquinas wrote. This is typical of Craig's sophistry.
The problem remains. The ASSUMPTION, that there must be a 'First Cause' is just that, an unjustified assumption.

But this is demonstrably false.

As even a cursory reading of that article makes clear, Craig does not simply "assume" there must be a first cause. Rather, he lays out several philosophical and scientific arguments for concluding the universe has a beginning, and thus a cause.

Now, you and I might disagree with Craig's conclusions. We might even find his argument lacking or unconvincing. You might even note that he may, in your mind, be committing a logical fallacy somewhere in that article. But that is not enough to support your claim. You have to show that he is being intellectually dishonest.

It seems to me your attempts to do that for both Craig and Aquinas have relied heavily on misrepresentations of what they are saying -- which is why I asked you to quote them directly. Perhaps you'll be able to correct that in your next reply.

[Diogenes]

Will this from Craig do?
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument

Sure. You are the one making the claim here, so I leave it to you to marshal your evidence.

For example, WLC offers, "Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will."
This is just another, less ingenuous way of stating what Aquinas wrote. This is typical of Craig's sophistry.
The problem remains. The ASSUMPTION, that there must be a 'First Cause' is just that, an unjustified assumption.

But this is demonstrably false.

The evidence HAS been marshaled. Craig simply parrots verbosely EXACTLY what Aquinas wrote. If, as you claim, my statement is "demonstrably false," then demonstrate.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #68]

It is very simple. He makes a special pleading, as I've previously stated. Cutting through the verbal barrage, he claims everything must be moved by something, EXCEPT his God. God, the Roman Catholic version, is the one entity that need not be moved. This is intellectually dishonest. For all his brilliance, Thomas falls prey to simple prejudice, to the allegiance of his own 'god.'

If it is the same "God" as biblically defined, then defining 'movement' as that which "caused the universe" - it is written that it was the very idea of "let there be" which created "So it was" and it might be acceptable that even if it were a thought of the God-creator, that was enough to spark a reaction and could be counted as a 'movement' - as in "The thought is itself a movement."

So far we have science telling of an object which exploded and some theists explaining that the "object" was actually a thought God had.

We got us a bunch of folks telling us it was a thought he had.

But not the first'n to show it was a thought he thought.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #68]

It is very simple. He makes a special pleading, as I've previously stated. Cutting through the verbal barrage, he claims everything must be moved by something, EXCEPT his God. God, the Roman Catholic version, is the one entity that need not be moved. This is intellectually dishonest. For all his brilliance, Thomas falls prey to simple prejudice, to the allegiance of his own 'god.'

If it is the same "God" as biblically defined, then defining 'movement' as that which "caused the universe" - it is written that it was the very idea of "let there be" which created "So it was" and it might be acceptable that even if it were a thought of the God-creator, that was enough to spark a reaction and could be counted as a 'movement' - as in "The thought is itself a movement."

So far we have science telling of an object which exploded and some theists explaining that the "object" was actually a thought God had.

We got us a bunch of folks telling us it was a thought he had.

Far as I can ascertain, I am the only one telling it as such - from what I can gather re the biblical account.

But not the first'n to show it was a thought he thought.

Who? The biblical God?

Given the idea of "God" the idea of a Creator-God thinking a thought which scientists refer to as an object that went [big] "bang" is acceptable enough in that context.

Size itself is not relevant in that context. We know that thought is like energy in that it produces something which can be measured [thus has mass] .

We also know that ancient theists had already established in their belief systems the idea of the big bang and their mythology which came about thousands of years before modern scientists confirmed it to being the case.

I 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 [WoO] which should never be opened, let alone the curtains be drawn...

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

We got us a bunch of folks telling us it was a thought he had.

Far as I can ascertain, I am the only one telling it as such - from what I can gather re the biblical account.

Plenty fair. I was speaking more generally, but compelled now to retract.

But not the first'n to show it was a thought he thought.

Who? The biblical God?

Yeah, as again, I speak generally.

Given the idea of "God" the idea of a Creator-God thinking a thought which scientists refer to as an object that went [big] "bang" is acceptable enough in that context.

Size itself is not relevant in that context. We know that thought is like energy in that it produces something which can be measured [thus has mass] .

Then what mass came to be, that thought it the universe into being it?

We also know that ancient theists had already established in their belief systems the idea of the big bang and their mythology which came about thousands of years before modern scientists confirmed it to being the case

Meh. Some of that bunch thought dead folks went to town shopping for deals.

I 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 [WoO] which should never be opened, let alone the curtains be drawn...

It should then be shown there was a 'designer', and that he was 'intelligent' when he did.

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.

If.

If gators could fix biscuits, would we cuss em for eating the chickens?

[William]

Given the idea of "God" the idea of a Creator-God thinking a thought which scientists refer to as an object that went [big] "bang" is acceptable enough in that context.

Size itself is not relevant in that context. We know that thought is like energy in that it produces something which can be measured [thus has mass] .

Then what mass came to be, that thought it the universe into being it?

No one can answer that but with speculation. I speculate that rather than a magical object exploding itself out into itself, that some type explosion disturbed the inert material of infinite space, creating movement and form [time] ... much like a thought creates the same thing in our minds...hence why I don't have a problem with the big bang being like unto an initial thought...

We also know that ancient theists had already established in their belief systems the idea of the big bang and their mythology which came about thousands of years before modern scientists confirmed it to being the case

Meh. Some of that bunch thought dead folks went to town shopping for deals.

So what? Shall we paint all of 'that bunch' with the same brush?

I 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 [WoO] which should never be opened, let alone the curtains be drawn...

It should then be shown there was a 'designer', and that he was 'intelligent' when he did.

Such is left to the individual to decide for themselves. The evidence does not as yet speak it on our behalf's, either way.

If ya'll want to interpret the universe as a product of low to no intelligence, that's ya'lls right to do so.

If.

Yes. We are currently only at the beginning of this universe. IF human beings survive it to the middle, not only will they be different from what they are at the moment, but they will know more.

"If" can be used in this type of future referencing, without it being a debate fallacy Joey.

[1213]

To believe universe with everlasting change that has no beginning is to me more difficult to believe than God that does not change. And that is because, if universe would be without beginning and be eternal, I think it would mean that it is constant loop and then I would have existed unlimited times in past and this same moment would have happened unlimited times. If things would go by a chance, I think it would be just too improbable to have exact same complex systems to develop on its own unlimited times the same way, without God.

It is not the same with God, because God doesn’t change, at least if we believe what the Bible tells.

"It's too difficult to believe me something else" is astoundingly indicative of the problems we face in getting the ignorant to quit projecting their irrational, unfounded beliefs upon society.
...

So, what do you say, has universe beginning, or has it existed eternally without beginning? Have you some excellent reason to believe so?

[1213]

...
But you have stated that the universe that is in a loop system would not change but repeat itself eternally. How is that different from anything which does not change?

We can observe that universe is changing, all things are in constant move. It could be that the loop stays same, but it would not mean that the universe is without change.

What makes you think that you know the intricacies of God to the degree that you observe no change?
Is it not true that all come from the point of ignorance?

Can you offer something better than your beliefs in this matter?