Eternity

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Eternity

Post #1

Post by 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?
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Eternity

Post #11

Post by nobspeople »

Diogenes wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 11:14 am
nobspeople wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:24 am
Diogenes wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 10:25 pm Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?
Dishonest or hypocritical? Six of one, half a dozen of the other?
But do christians say this? I can't recall ever hearing this (though that means nothing other than that).
But if they do, it could be that god was always here, with 'nothing', then got bored (?) and created...everything....?
I don't know - christians say a lot of things; they make a lot of claims they can't back up past ambiguity written in a book by some dead men.
Let's clarify. There is a huge difference between dishonesty and 'intellectual dishonesty.' I did not intend to accuse anyone of personal dishonesty. 'Hypocrisy' does not apply at all and should not be used; it merely confuses the issue. So let's use a more neutral word like "inconsistent."

1st, yes indeed Christians for centuries have made a special pleading for God, their god. Since at least Augustine and the 'prime mover' argument, a special exception for a 'creator god' has been carved from the vacuum. It is claimed that the Christian 'god' has always been.
OTOH
These same folk claim the universe MUST have had a beginning, and its beginning was done by their specially plead 'God.' So, YES, this is a glaring inconsistency in logic. If a 'god' can be permitted to have always been, than the same can be said for the universe or 'Existence.'
To me, if someone believes XYZ for everything but ABC, then that's being hypocritical at worst; choosy at best. I'm not one for using neutral words: a horse is a horse if it's really a horse.
But for this purpose, let's stay with 'inconsistent' :roll:

Sure the same could be said for the universe, but that doesn't means it MUST be said. From my experience, many see it like this:
God
Then a lot of 'nothingness'
Then god decided to make 'everything'.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong, simply that's how some see it, as it's been explained to me. For them, there's no reason to say 'god' can be permitted to have always been, than the same must be said for the universe or 'Existence.'
Rather that's illogical, hypocritical, inconsistent, silly, or hotdog, it doesn't seem to matter to them.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Eternity

Post #12

Post by William »

[Replying to Diogenes in post #9]
I do not see the difference between claiming "God has always been" and "the universe has always been."
Do you think then that both claims are or are not intellectually dishonest?
What is the logic in claiming it is possible for a 'god' to have no beginning and no end, compared to claiming the universe has no beginning and no end?
The logic supporting either claim is that beginnings and endings are not real when they are in an eternal environment.

In order for one to claim the universe has always existed AND account for observed beginning and calculated ending - we have to include the possibility that the environment the universe is beginning and ending in, is eternal.
What is special about the claim of a god (however that may be defined) not being created and claiming the universe was not created?
There appears to be nothing special about either claim unless one believes that either claim is special pleading.
Death may be that which give rise to the idea that eternity is special. It is more logical to understand that the temporary exists upon the background of eternity and that this is the natural state of all existence.
The only difference I can find is that 'God' is defined as a creator, whereas the universe is defined as a creation. Isn't that just an arbitrary definition? Does it not make as much sense to say 'God' is a creation of man, as to say the universe is a creation of God? In other words, why be bound by mere definitions of words? Why can we not just as easily claim "'Universe' means that which has always been" as claim "'God' means that which has always been?"
I think you are asking "what is the difference between creator and creation?"

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Eternity

Post #13

Post by William »

From another message board thread;

Nonetheless, my point remains - there is no reason intuitive or otherwise, which should have us dismiss the likelihood of physics existing prior to the GZ event, which is why I argue for the logic of space being an infinite canvas in which GZ events happen continuously, creating what we refer to as 'Universe' - singular in our case since we are experiencing a singular universe - but there is no reason why innumerable universes cannot also exist as products of there own GZ moments.
Unsupported speculation.
Of course it is. Any speculations of what existed prior to the GZ moment, are unsupported .
The speculation I think most likely to turn out to be true is actually not dissimilar to yours - that ours is just one universe in an infinite multiverse - mostly because of precedent; every time we thought we'd reached the limit we eventually learned otherwise. It seemed ours was the only world, then we discovered those moving points of lights in the sky were other worlds. It seemed ours was the only solar system, then we discovered the fixed lights in the sky were other stars. It seemed ours was the only galaxy, then we discovered those little patches of light in the sky were other galaxies. So when it comes to this being the only universe, I don't think that's the way to bet. But at the moment we can only speculate, though I'm hopeful it's a question to which the answer can eventually be discovered.
What you are referring to is 'patterns' - observations which lead us away from pure ignorance and into better understanding of 'most likely' speculations to adopt, based upon the observed patterns.
My question is why would physicists leave their common sense at the door when it comes to prior state by assuming that physics was not involved re the prior state, and speculate non-physics instead?
They don't, it's only theists who do that.


Too sweeping. I would agree that some branches of theism do that, but your generated statement implies otherwise, and appears untruthful for that.
Different physics is not non-physics.
Thus, it should be fine to accept the idea that what we call the universe is simply a ripple in space which created forms which allowed for time to begin and end upon the back-drop of eternity.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Eternity

Post #14

Post by William »

Also from another message board thread;

However, I think there is a misconception that Navigator is hung-up on. He rejects the idea that the whole universe could have been compressed into a point or some tiny thing..."almost nothing" I think he refers to it as. But in fact, that is a misunderstanding of the theory. When cosmologists talk about the primordial singularity, most people jump to the conclusion that they are talking about the same sort of singularity that is being referenced with regard to a black hole, but this is not that case at all. The term simply refers to an early hot, dense phase of the universe.
I do not reject any idea. Questioning any idea is not the same thing as rejecting any idea.

The questioning itself points to what is referred to as 'magical thinking' in relation to a seed which hung upon itself and the germinated into itself and upon germinating, became a series of unfolding events which we humans - so near the beginning of its unfolding - perceive as an astronomical reality - and one in which we have barely scratched the surface of...

Bearing in mind what we do know about seeds, we understand that they contain coding which - and this is the kicker - require an outside substance in order to be enabled to release that information and become something other than just the seed.

The seed requires a backdrop which already exists in order to be be able to germinate - to release its coding.

That is why I speculate that space is eternal and acts as the ground in which the seed germinates and becomes what its encoding specifies.

Online
User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Eternity

Post #15

Post by 1213 »

Diogenes wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 10:25 pm Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?
By what the Bible tells, God is spirit. Spirit can be something not physical, therefore it is not necessarily bound by laws of physics. Physical world is a different matter, at least if we believe that the laws of physics are true. In physical world we have “time”, chain of events that leads to other events. We can see in nature movement. And when there is movement/change, it has come from somewhere. For example, if I drop an apple, it falls till it hits ground. We can see in that cause and effect. In natural world there normally is always something that caused what we can see. We have not observed anything happen without a cause. This leads to unending chain of events, unless there was some ultimate cause that started everything without own cause.

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.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Eternity

Post #16

Post by TRANSPONDER »

I guess you already know my take on this. Aside that a postulated intelligent creator - god doesn't tell you which religion is the right one (if any), while it may seem to the Theist arguing Cosmic origins that inanimate matter cannot be eternal or can have popped out of nowhere and a magical being is somehow excused all such limitations, it seems to me that, while matter/energy is such a basic form that it is near nothing could exist without the need to be created, is takes more explaining to make a case for a complex intelligent creative entity that didn't need to come from anywhere.

Of course pointing to 'alpha and Omega' in the Bible proves nothing whatsoever. It is no more than a Faith - claim.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Eternity

Post #17

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Diogenes wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 10:25 pm Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?
PLEASE NOTE I make no claims here, I am simply presenting hypothetical scenarios ...

No, I dont think so, not if the two are factually correct.

If the universe had some kind of "big bang" "beginnning" from some point of singularity, it would be different from a god that is an uncaused cause (first cause) and if the universe had no beginning it would just be another example of an uncaused cause (proving that such a thing is indeed possible).
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Eternity

Post #18

Post by Miles »

Diogenes wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 10:25 pm 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.


.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Eternity

Post #19

Post by Tcg »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 2:09 pm I guess you already know my take on this. Aside that a postulated intelligent creator - god doesn't tell you which religion is the right one (if any), while it may seem to the Theist arguing Cosmic origins that inanimate matter cannot be eternal or can have popped out of nowhere and a magical being is somehow excused all such limitations, it seems to me that, while matter/energy is such a basic form that it is near nothing could exist without the need to be created, is takes more explaining to make a case for a complex intelligent creative entity that didn't need to come from anywhere.

Of course pointing to 'alpha and Omega' in the Bible proves nothing whatsoever. It is no more than a Faith - claim.
I agree. It seems many humans are not comfortable with mystery. Accepting the concept of a creator/god/uncaused cause or some such thing, resolves the mystery concerning the existence of the universe, but of course doesn't resolve the mystery of the creator/god/uncaused cause so it doesn't solve anything. It takes faith to accept especially if one is going to claim it is tied to some specific God like the one of the Bible.

It can be very interesting to ponder these questions, but in the end humans may never know all the answers. We might as well get comfortable with mystery because the answer "we don't know for sure" may be the best answer for a very long time. In some ways the more we learn the more mystery we uncover and the number of questions increases. It's like that old joke about finding a missing link. Every time you find one, you create gaps for two more.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: Eternity

Post #20

Post by Diogenes »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 11:46 am To me, if someone believes XYZ for everything but ABC, then that's being hypocritical at worst; choosy at best. I'm not one for using neutral words: a horse is a horse if it's really a horse.
But for this purpose, let's stay with 'inconsistent' :roll:
"Choosy" or "cheesy?" ;)
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

Post Reply