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?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #119]

The best I can do is to note if there is this 'cosmic mind', how come we can't all just think our thoughts to one another, or how come our opinions can differ so differently.

...Hmmm...I suppose that a Planetary Mind under the same circumstances as a human mind, could conceivably have a hard time accepting their are vaster minds still...such as Galactic Minds...surely though a planetary mind could work that out? If QueenBee is a "Mind" then that which she is part of, must also bee a Mind...

"We're the universe become aware."

Your position is really hard to fuss against.

I'm better for having heard it.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #121]

"We're the universe become aware."

Your position is really hard to fuss against.

I'm better for having heard it.

Hear thee Hear Thee "Galactic Gardens"

But wait! There's more! This just in!

viewtopic.php?p=1074223#p1074223

[historia]

You write as if making assumptions and giving reasons for those assumptions are mutually exclusive. Do you really believe that?

I didn't realize our disagreement lay in the very definition of the word 'assumption', Diogenes. But that appears to be the case, and would certain explain why we seem to be talking past each other here.

If I tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and give you five reasons why I have reached that conclusion, would you say I'm just "assuming" the earth is 4.5 billion years old and giving you "reasons for my assumption"?

That's not how most people use the word 'assumption'.

To assume means "to take as granted or true," so Merriam Webster. If someone is giving me a reasoned argument for why they think something is true, then they are not simply taking it for granted. So, yes, giving reasons for one's conclusion is the opposite of making an assumption.

Craig, in his own words, assumes the universe must have had a beginning. Then he gives his reasons for his assumption.

No, he sets out the premise that the universe had a beginning, and then gives us a reasoned argument as to why he thinks that premise is likely true.

This is not hard to understand. It may be hard for some to accept, but not to understand.

In so far as you are using the words 'assume' and 'assumption' here in a non-standard way -- in your usage any conclusion, no matter how thoroughly argued, could be called an 'assumption' -- then it is, in fact, hard to understand what you are trying to say. For that reason, your argument appears confused.

I don't disagree with your phrase about Craig being intellectually dishonest

It seems we've reached the end of our discussion, then. If you don't think Craig is being intellectually dishonest and your complaint about Aquinas was predicated on a misrepresentation of his argument, as we saw above, then it seems that the two Christian philosophers we looked at are not being intellectually dishonest (per the OP), even if we may disagree with their conclusions.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to historia in post #123] I was going to say the same thing, we are talking past each other. You are using English In a way I have seldom encountered. I agree, however, in the sense that I take your point that a premise and an assumption can be confused, or even blend into each other, tho' I disagree with your ultimate conclusions in your final paragraph.

Perhaps you can point out to me where either Craig or Aquinas show any openness to the idea the universe has always been, in one form or another. To me it seems obvious that existence has always been, that it needs no "beginning." That statement can be viewed as an assumption or as a premise. I'll call it a tentative conclusion. I'm open to changing that view, but have never seen an argument or a set of facts that yet persuade me otherwise.

[Difflugia]

If I tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and give you five reasons why I have reached that conclusion, would you say I'm just "assuming" the earth is 4.5 billion years old and giving you "reasons for my assumption"?

If "the earth is 4.5 billion years old" is a premise to an argument, then I would claim that you are presenting an assumption and could also give reasons for doing so. Even if you and I think we have good reasons for accepting that premise and it wouldn't be considered an "assumption" in most contexts, it would as part of a logical syllogism, which is the context in which Craig is making his arguments.

To assume means "to take as granted or true," so Merriam Webster.

And that's what the accepted premises are within the context of the syllogism, whether there are good reasons (or any reasons at all) for accepting them.

[Diogenes]

In any event, returning to the OP, 'Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;" yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?'
... and without blaming anyone or attributing this inconsistency to anyone, how can this NOT be inconsistent? How can this not be a special pleading for 'god?' In the alternative, isn't this 'god' simply DEFINED in a way to make it fit the claim?

A phrase of Paul Tillich's comes to mind when he writes of God as "the very ground of being."

[William]

In any event, returning to the OP, 'Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;" yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?'
... and without blaming anyone or attributing this inconsistency to anyone, how can this NOT be inconsistent? How can this not be a special pleading for 'god?' In the alternative, isn't this 'god' simply DEFINED in a way to make it fit the claim?

A phrase of Paul Tillich's comes to mind when he writes of God as "the very ground of being."

Without "Zero" mathematics would not be able to work.

"Zero" is often thought of as being "Nothing" - much as how a non-theist thinks of "God" as being...but without a creator, the creation can't be explained as to why it exists.

The "Zero" represents The Mind, and the mind is not "nothing".

It is true that some theist thinking has it that the universe began, just as some scientific theories postulate a beginning.

Either way - it is a kind of magical thinking but since it appears that the universe did have a beginning even that the math only implies this to being the case, the magical thinking has to remain on the table of discussion.

This in turn leaves one thinking that the existence of "God" has been granted unfair advantage over the existence of the universe when folk state that "God" doesn't need to have had a beginning, when the universe apparently does have one, which in turn has the protesters bring in the idea of the fallacy of infinite regress [turtles all the way 'down'.]

But what seems to be left out of that equation is that it is also turtles all the way up.

Indeed, the truth of it is that there is no 'up' or 'down' in this universe, so the fallacy argument of infinite regress does not hold water and can be abandoned.

Infinite implies timelessness.

Regress implies time.

They don't fit together logically.

[Tcg]

"Zero" is often thought of as being "Nothing" - much as how a non-theist thinks of "God"...

No. We don't think of God as being "Nothing." Being "Nothing" would imply being something. (Ain't philosophy fun?) We lack belief in god/gods.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #128]

I was being specific to non-theism not any particular branch of non-theism.

What does "We lack belief in god/gods." mean that it doesn't involve thinking "God" is "Nothing" - as in "God does not exist" ?

Or are you meaning 'nothing' in some other way?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #124]

Perhaps you can point out to me where either Craig or Aquinas show any openness to the idea the universe has always been, in one form or another. To me it seems obvious that existence has always been, that it needs no "beginning." That statement can be viewed as an assumption or as a premise. I'll call it a tentative conclusion. I'm open to changing that view, but have never seen an argument or a set of facts that yet persuade me otherwise.

Something has to be eternal. An infinite regress of universes, infinite universe, or infinite God.

Entropy does not allow for an infinite regress of universes or an infinite universe so you are left with an infinite God. Did I miss any other option?