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?

[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 is an interesting topic for discussion.

I do not think it is unfair but wonder if scientists are really telling us that the universe had a beginning...there are some who think that the beginning is simply something along the lines of a reboot which signifies that while the universe has beginnings and ends, this has been an eternal process of beginnings and ends.

But again, I do not think it is intellectually dishonest if one side claims one thing about the universe having not always existed, and the other side does not make the same claim about their God...

Under such circumstance, the subjects are different as one deals with the creation while the other deals with the creator.

[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?

It is an interesting topic for discussion.

I do not think it is unfair but wonder if scientists are really telling us that the universe had a beginning...there are some who think that the beginning is simply something along the lines of a reboot which signifies that while the universe has beginnings and ends, this has been an eternal process of beginnings and ends.

But again, I do not think it is intellectually dishonest if one side claims one thing about the universe having not always existed, and the other side does not make the same claim about their God...

Under such circumstance, the subjects are different as one deals with the creation while the other deals with the creator.

I do not see the difference between claiming "God has always been" and "the universe has always been." 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? What is special about the claim of a god (however that may be defined) not being created and claiming the universe was not created?

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?"

[Tcg]

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

I'm not sure if it is intellectually dishonest or intellectually inconsistent. It certainly reeks of special pleading. The universe as we know it today may have had a beginning, but that doesn't mean its basic building blocks did. Perhaps matter has always existed in one form of another.

The odd thing about any claims concerning God are that we can't actually point to the thing some claim exists. The universe is very different. We can step outside at night and see at least a very small chunk of it. We ourselves are an even smaller chunk of it. Why would we need a God to explain its and our existence?


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

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

Intellectually goofy.

Special pleading aside, we ain't got to whatever end is the final'n for everything, that we might know God made it along that far.

It's just a notion used to astound the gullible or ignorant.

[Difflugia]

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

The universe as we know it apparently had a beginning, but since that's also the beginning of time itself, the universe has also "always" existed. Even if it's unintentional, there's a bit of equivocation going on about what "always" means.

I don't think that's normally the intellectually dishonest part, though. That's just the inherent difficulty in conceptualizing the beginning of time.

The dishonest part is when asking if there was a cause, insisting that "God did it" gets preferential treatment over other answers, even ones that are more than nonsense. God has no non-circular definition. Critiquing another cosmology's definition is fine, but then replacing it with "God" is intellectually dishonest. It's just like claiming that gremlins are responsible for a car's mechanical problems. "It's not a battery problem because I've tested that. I can't think of anything else, so it must be gremlins." God is the ultimate gremlin.

[nobspeople]

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.

[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?

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.'

[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?

The universe as we know it apparently had a beginning, but since that's also the beginning of time itself, the universe has also "always" existed. Even if it's unintentional, there's a bit of equivocation going on about what "always" means.

I don't think that's normally the intellectually dishonest part, though. That's just the inherent difficulty in conceptualizing the beginning of time.

The dishonest part is when asking if there was a cause, insisting that "God did it" gets preferential treatment over other answers, even ones that are more than nonsense. God has no non-circular definition. Critiquing another cosmology's definition is fine, but then replacing it with "God" is intellectually dishonest. It's just like claiming that gremlins are responsible for a car's mechanical problems. "It's not a battery problem because I've tested that. I can't think of anything else, so it must be gremlins." God is the ultimate gremlin.

You make an excellent point with " ...but since that's also the beginning of time itself, the universe has also "always" existed." Another way to look at it, could be that the 'singularity' that brought time/universe/existence into being is cyclical; that it happens every 14 billion years or so... OR that the 'nothing' that existed before time is not the philosopher's 'nothing,' but a inchoate potential that physicists speak of.

"The dishonest part is when asking if there was a cause, insisting that "God did it" gets preferential treatment over other answers...." Exactly!

[although it may be less objectionable to call it a "gross intellectual inconsistency" rather than to impugn one's integrity. My apologies if I made such an implication].

[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?

I'm not sure if it is intellectually dishonest or intellectually inconsistent. It certainly reeks of special pleading. The universe as we know it today may have had a beginning, but that doesn't mean its basic building blocks did. Perhaps matter has always existed in one form of another.
....

Yes! I made the same point before I read your post. Thanks!