142 replies to this topic

[Lanatin]

wundermonk, on 16 July 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

If you say the present will not be reached, you have to be able to answer what would be reached with an infinite past instead of the present?

kucha naheem, its a logical fallacy.

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 16 July 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

This analogy is weak. It argues on the basis that God is similar to human beings or that change in general by necessity requires a change in the cause. Neither holds.

What is God similar to?
The claim that God ‘transcends our understanding’ is usually invoked as a defence whenever the theists encounter a paradox.
God moves in 'mysterious ways'.

In this mysterious world 'magic' happens, a timeless changeless being takes decisions creates natural and unnatural laws as well as a universe filled with amazing stuff, including life and laws of morality while remaining changeless and timeless.

Quote

God is eternally aware of what was and what became and what will be.

If God is eternally aware that the universe exists then the universe must exist eternally.
Therefore the universe couldn't have been created. So God doesn't exist.

wslm
*

[Lanatin]

Something transcending our understanding whilst being based on a logical premise is only magic in the minds of the hypocritical.  Everone agrees on the reality of eternity, but it transcends our understanding. Yet we are told the universe is eternal. Ah, must be magic then, doesnt exist! Same thing with the passage of time that is relative to the universe. The present will never be reached with an infinite past, so there must be a first cause. At the same time the cause is an eternal being who's actions and decision are seen by Him as one "eternal moment" as ethereal put it. You could say God is eternally aware that the universe has a cause due to Him. Two ontological realities that cant seem to be reconciled doesnt mean they can't if logic permits they must.

"And to God belongs the unseen of the heavens and the earth; and the matter of the Hour is but like a twinkling of the eye, or nigher still; verily God over all things had power"  (16:77)

"And Our command is but one like the twinkling of of an eye" (54:50)

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 17 July 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

You have to argue your case. Otherwise, it's just baroque rhetoric.

God is not similar to anything. That doesn't mean we cannot speak of how the world is related to its Source.

The knowledge of everything is eternal, yes. God's essence is the knowledge of all things. The existence is not.

By saying that - before - during and after creation are three moments in time, I have argued my case. Unless you can prove otherwise.

Your response is that  "it is a week analogy because it argues on the basis that God is similar to human beings" forgetting that you have not shown that a God exists and is not similar to anything.

God needs to be the conclusion of your logic.
If the conclusion is the premise, as in your case, it's a circular argument, i.e. intellectually flawed on the most basic level

wslm.
*.

La, on 17 July 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

Something transcending our understanding whilst being based on a logical premise is only magic in the minds of the hypocritical.

When faced with the unknown, "we don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer.

To say God is the cause of the universe is to pretend to know something of a causation that has nothing to do with the causation we're familiar with.
Now that is hypocrisy.

Quote

Everone agrees on the reality of eternity, but it transcends our understanding. Yet we are told the universe is eternal.

If you can say that God is eternal, why can't you just say that the universe is eternal too, and skip the magic-part?

We have two entities competing for the position of "eternal and uncreated."
For one of them, we have vast evidence that it really exists. For the other, we have no evidence at all.  

This is why an "eternal and uncreated universe" is the superior answer to the question of ultimate reality than an "eternal and uncreated god."  

At least as far as the evidence is concerned.

wslm.
*

[Lanatin]

Quisant, on 17 July 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

When faced with the unknown, "we don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer.

To say God is the cause of the universe is to pretend to know something of a causation that has nothing to do with the causation we're familiar with.
Now that is hypocrisy.


If you can say that God is eternal, why can't you just say that the universe is eternal too, and skip the magic-part?

I was just highlighting the hypocrisy on your part. No need for namecalling, it only makes you appear desperate.

Quote

We have two entities competing for the position of "eternal and uncreated."
For one of them, we have vast evidence that it really exists. For the other, we have no evidence at all.  

This is why an "eternal and uncreated universe" is the superior answer to the question of ultimate reality than an "eternal and uncreated god."  

At least as far as the evidence is concerned.

wslm.
*

No it isnt, the universe has form within the bounds of space and by these facts it moves through a linear time movement. Hence it is impossible for it to eternally exist, it is within the bounds of time. An infinite past for this universe is a logical absurdity. It had a beginning, there is no way around it.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 17 July 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[Quisant]

La, on 17 July 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

No it isnt, the universe has form within the bounds of space and by these facts it moves through a linear time movement. Hence it is impossible for it to eternally exist, it is within the bounds of time. An infinite past for this universe is a logical absurdity. It had a beginning, there is no way around it.

I didn't say infinite, I said eternal... eternal is part of time and time is part of the Universe.  

The Universe as we know it (meaning everything we can possibly observe) came into existence about 13B years ago,
and there is no evidence that there was or wasn’t anything earlier.
*

[wundermonk]

La, on 16 July 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

wundermonk said:

If you say the present will not be reached, you have to be able to answer what would be reached with an infinite past instead of the present?

kucha naheem, its a logical fallacy.

Jab aapse yeh poocha jaata hai ki agar vakt ki shuruath kabhi hui nahin tho varthamaan kaal nahin pahuncheenge tho bhooth mein kaunsa kaal pahuncheenge, aap sawaal ka jawaab nahin de pare hhain...

In any case, what is the logical fallacy here? Thus far your argument has been similar to "If an infinite past existed, then the square circle is pink. Since a pink square circle cannot be, the past is finite."

Jebreil, on 16 July 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

wundermonk said:

In other words, which state per you should be associated with the beginning of time? Does t = 0 correspond to the prime state or does t = 0 correspond to the caused state?

The notion of Time emerged with the first creature coming into existing ex nihilo, and prior to the first creature was Eternity, which is not a renewal of moments, as there are no moments.

I am afraid this does not answer the question. You are now taking of the notion of time as opposed to time. Big difference.

[Lanatin]

Quote

Jab aapse yeh poocha jaata hai ki agar vakt ki shuruath kabhi hui nahin tho varthamaan kaal nahin pahuncheenge tho bhooth mein kaunsa kaal pahuncheenge, aap sawaal ka jawaab nahin de pare hhain...

In any case, what is the logical fallacy here? Thus far your argument has been similar to "If an infinite past existed, then the square circle is pink. Since a pink square circle cannot be, the past is finite."

Samay ka behd kewal es vissshav thak hia; joh ham samujtehy hain kewal es bardhman k kakshsh mein hia...hamne nahi patha aap kis behd ke vishav mein varthalaap kar rahe hain yeh toh ahsambahv hia.

Refer to my last post. Two ontological realities can be linked if theyre based on logical premises, just like eternity.

BTW I dont want any more hindi being exchanged, im already having difficulty with urdu as it is.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 17 July 2012 - 11:09 AM.

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 17 July 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

A claim is not an argument.
But, nevertheless, you make a potent point. You are saying that there is a state "prior to creation", a state where "creation is" and a state where "posterior to creation". I agree with all this. That is the belief of a person who believes that the Past is finite.
In all these states, God is unchanging, just as a magnet does not change in the three states of an iron-clip: "prior to attraction", "attraction" and "posterior to attraction".

The magnet uses energy to attract or reject, it changes from inactive to active.
The magnet that has attracted an object has become heavier and it is subject to a different gravitational pull.

The God that creates from potential creator becomes actual creator and when He acts to create He enters into time, of necessity, now having a past and a present.

Unlike a magnet a Creator becomes responsible for His creation: The Guardian The Evolver, The Fashioner, The Designer, The Fashioner of Forms, The Repeatedly Forgiving, The Provider, The Preserver, The Nourisher, The Destroyer, The Bringer of Death. Etc etc etc.

    
God has intentions and makes conscious decisions.
The one trait that all things which are Conscious have in common is the ability to make decisions.
In order for God to be even minimally conscious  He must be able to change his mind from undecided to decided.  Now I don’t create…now I create.

wslm.
*

[Belial]

For Jebriel,

Your magnet analogy did appear to have a before, during and after state.  If the paper clip was not always moving. It had to come into the magnetic field. It had to come into existence at a certain time, which would be...well, it would be at that moment. That could only happen if whatever manipulated it, worked with that sequence of moments as well.  The creator would have to have some form of relation to the sequence of events.  This God would have to be subjected to physical moments, just as the events would be.

La, on 17 July 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

I was just highlighting the hypocrisy on your part. No need for namecalling, it only makes you appear desperate.

No it isnt, the universe has form within the bounds of space and by these facts it moves through a linear time movement. Hence it is impossible for it to eternally exist, it is within the bounds of time. An infinite past for this universe is a logical absurdity. It had a beginning, there is no way around it.

Ill disagree with that. I see no reason to be certain that It hasnt existed in one form or another indefinitely.

Edited by Belial, 18 July 2012 - 07:22 PM.

[Lanatin]

Belial, on 18 July 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

For Jebriel,

Ill disagree with that. I see no reason to be certain that It hasnt existed in one form or another indefinitely.

Oh wow and you have the nerve to drift off-topic in a thread related to politics by calling our beliefs magical and then you expect us to swallow this with a harmonious dialogue?

It's simple: infinite past --> present will never be reached.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 18 July 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Belial]

La, on 18 July 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Oh wow and you have the nerve to drift off-topic in a thread related to politics by calling our beliefs magical and then you expect us to swallow this with a harmonious dialogue?

It's simple: infinite past --> present will never be reached.

My beliefs are magical too, take it easy.

And, that infinite past statement, thats questionable.  Even with something like...God.  God is believed to be eternal.  it exists eternally and is independent and the only thing that exists before anything else.  Yet, products of that God, physical events, eventually are met.  

If the universe, existed in a form unlike what we know, it wouldnt necessarily need to have a starting point.

If anything, this point could easily be argued by creationists too.  Unless creationists believe that God created everything from nothing.  

Do you all believe everything was created from nothing?  Honest question.  If you dont, then id assume you too would believe that the universe has always existed, in one form or another.

Edited by Belial, 18 July 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[Lanatin]

Belial, on 18 July 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

My beliefs are magical too, take it easy.

And, that infinite past statement, thats questionable.  Even with something like...God.  God is believed to be eternal.  it exists eternally and is independent and the only thing that exists before anything else.  Yet, products of that God, events, eventually are met.  

If the universe, existed in a form unlike what we know, it wouldnt necessarily need to have a starting point.

If anything, this point could easily be argued by creationists too.  Unless creationists believe that God created everything from nothing.  

Do you all believe everything was created from nothing?  Honest question.

Whatever form it was, its a form within the bounds of space. It moves through a linear passage of time, so it must have a starting point to reach the present which we are experiencing.  And naturally a starting point will mean a time when matter/prakriti wasn't present, since matter has form and moves through time. Outside this universe there would be no time since it is a formless, boundless & infinite space. Just replace the "space" with God, and you will understand what ethereal says when stating that from God's perspective everything has happened in one eternal moment. The beginning of this universe and the timelessness of God's essence are two ontological realities, just like eternity.  We cannot comprehend the unknown, but we do know that for every effect there is a cause. And that for this present to be reached the universe's past couldn't have been infinite. And that the universe didn't emerge from nothing, nor did it create it self. The Ultimate cause for this non-sentient universe is only one:

God.

[Belial]

La, on 18 July 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Whatever form it was, its a form within the bounds of space. It moves through a linear passage of time, so it must have a starting point to reach the present which we are experiencing.  And naturally a starting point will mean a time when matter/prakriti wasn't present, since matter has form and moves through time. Outside this universe there would be no time since it is a formless, boundless & infinite space. Just replace the "space" with God, and you will understand what ethereal says when stating that from God's perspective everything has happened in one eternal moment. The beginning of this universe and the timelessness of God's essence are two ontological realities, just like eternity.  We cannot comprehend the unknown, but we do know that for every effect there is a cause. And that for this present to be reached the universe's past couldn't have been infinite. And that the universe didn't emerge from nothing, nor did it create it self. The Ultimate cause for this non-sentient universe is only one:

God.

I dont know about that.

Time itself, doesnt actually exist.  So I am trying to not use that word.  And, when we discuss matter, realistically, we dont understand matter. It can pop in and out of existence and can be ever present in any place at any given moment, or nowhere at all.

So, the last thing we want to do is make an argument dependent on matter.  Let alone time which doesnt exist on its own.

Then you say, just replace space with God.  Well, why not just leave it as space? Space filled with the unknown.

And there ya go, we do know that for every effect there is a cause and that the universe didnt emerge from nothing.  It must have existed in another form elsewhere.

You call it God.  I say, well, I really dont know what it is, nor do I know why I should even bother calling it God.  I could call it God, but I could also call it beebop the magnificent.  Or the rarabanana ambiguous material.  

I could call it anything, and it could be anything.  It could be non sentient as well.  Nobody really knows.  And yet, there are people calling it "creation", as if it is something that was thought about with tender loving care, and made in a particular "image".

And in religious texts, this beebop the magnificent also shows emotion.  He fights wars for the Jews and floods the planet n such.  

Well, I guess thats part two of our discussion. For another time.

I dont think id call something creation, without knowing anything about the supposed creator first.  Its like...the blind watch maker argument.

People would argue that if you saw a complex eyeball, it must have been created.  They assume a creator without knowing anything about the creator.  Then we find out something non sentient made it, and all of a sudden the argument shifts back to...well, back to even more distant questions.

So why believe the universe is a creation? Rather than something that exists on its own?

Come to think of it, I dont even know if God, or beebop the magnificent could even be sentient in the way we use the word.  Even if it could be understood, it probably wouldnt even be something that could be considered "alive". It would just be what it is. And that would be it.

And I agree that there, would likely be something out there. There could be many things out there.  I just dont think I would call "it" or "those things" a "creator", nor would i call it "sentient".  Those words have fairly specific meanings.  I think its a bit bold to use them.

Edited by Belial, 18 July 2012 - 08:31 PM.

[Lanatin]

Belial, on 18 July 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

I dont know about that.

Time itself, doesnt actually exist.  So I am trying to not use that word.  And, when we discuss matter, realistically, we dont understand matter. It can pop in and out of existence and can be ever present in any place at any given moment, or nowhere at all.

So, the last thing we want to do is make an argument dependent on matter.  Let alone time which doesnt exist on its own.

Then you say, just replace space with God.  Well, why not just leave it as space? Space filled with the unknown.

And there ya go, we do know that for every effect there is a cause and that the universe didnt emerge from nothing.  It must have existed in another form elsewhere.

You call it God.  I say, well, I really dont know what it is, nor do I know why I should even bother calling it God.  I could call it God, but I could also call it beebop the magnificent.  Or the rarabanana ambiguous material.  

I could call it anything, and it could be anything.  It could be non sentient as well.  Nobody really knows.

Doesnt matter what you call it. Call it Brahman, call it Allah, call it El. Nobody knows the essence true , and I dont believe time has an objective existence either. But this whole universe moves through a linear passage from past to present.  It becomes unavoidable to say it had a beginning. Unless you want to argue for a pantheist philosophy and say the universe is just an extension of God. Which would be a whole different debate. For a cause to bring in something to existence without any aid/interaction with anything whatsoever, it needs to be conscious.

We know matter isn't conscious; if the universe had a divine sentient spark that gives it that divine attribute of mysterious properties that make it pop out and there, we'd be all-knowing. If the universe was dominated by a consciousness, we'd be in communion with this universe and be all-knowing and wouldn't rely so much on conjecture and colossal ignorance. Our full potential wouldn't be dependant on our limited experience and knowledge which tends to make most of us fall short of achieving perfection. The universe isn't God.

[Belial]

La, on 18 July 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

Doesnt matter what you call it. Call it Brahman, call it Allah, call it El. Nobody knows the essence true , and I dont believe time has an objective existence either. But this whole universe moves through a linear passage from past to present.  It becomes unavoidable to say it had a beginning. Unless you want to argue for a pantheist philosophy and say the universe is just an extension of God. Which would be a whole different debate. For a cause to bring in something to existence without any aid/interaction with anything whatsoever, it needs to be conscious.

Well, you yourself just...not to put words in your mouth, but you appear to recognize that the universe must have come into being after having already existed in another way, prior.  So, its like...a chicken.  A chicken yes, may have not always existed.  It must have had a beginning.  Well, the beginning is just an egg, which it too is nothing...nothing I would call God.  Its just an egg.  And an egg doesnt need a conscious to bring a chicken into existence.

La, on 18 July 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

We know matter isn't conscious; if the universe had a divine sentient spark that gives it that divine attribute of mysterious properties that make it pop out and there, we'd be all-knowing. If the universe was dominated by a consciousness, we'd be in communion with this universe and be all-knowing and wouldn't rely so much on conjecture and colossal ignorance. Our full potential wouldn't be dependant on our limited experience and knowledge which tends to make most of us fall short of achieving perfection. The universe isn't God.

Ill hold off on this for a bit. I dont want to open a can of worms.

[Lanatin]

No analogies in the discussion please, we're talking about the ultimate cause of existence itself.

Btw i've always wanted to know if you're a pantheist or not.

[Belial]

La, on 18 July 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

No analogies in the discussion please, we're talking about the ultimate cause of existence itself.

Btw i've always wanted to know if you're a pantheist or not.

Well, the analogy is my point.  In that, just because the "universe" has a beginning, like a chicken has a beginning, that doesnt mean that what was before the universe is a sentient being, just as an egg isnt a sentient being either.

So, while I also believe there is something outside of the universe, as I believe there is something outside of a chicken.  I wouldnt necessarily call it a sentient creator.

Ill consider myself a muslim for this period of time.

Edited by Belial, 18 July 2012 - 09:11 PM.

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 18 July 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

People change their minds from undecided to decided only when they are unsure - due to lack of knowledge or fear. God always knew what He was going to existentiate ex nihilo.

God always knew He was going to create ...you mean He just created without giving it a single thought?
He did not choose to create? When to create?
Is God trapped by His knowledge and acts like a robot? No free will?

If God has always known absolutely everything and cannot change his mind because what He knows is perfect ...
if God is immutable cannot learn anything from his creation because learning implies change..
would raise the question of just what the point of creation was.

wslm.
*

La, on 18 July 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

But this whole universe moves through a linear passage from past to present.  It becomes unavoidable to say it had a beginning.

'This' Universe has a beginning, 'that' which became this universe does not have a beginning.

*

Edited by Quisant, 19 July 2012 - 02:33 AM.