What's your definition of "God"?

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Format the argument logically. The "First Cause needs a Cause", and the error should be self evident.

But we have absolutely no evidence that there ever was a first cause. And choosing to define God as 'first cause', again seems like special pleading.

To put it another way, you may ask the question "What's bigger than God?", to which one might respond - "asking the question 'What's bigger than the biggest thing ever?' is an error." Whereas I would say that the error in the second question lies in the definition of God, not in the question. That's the special pleading I was looking at.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by DarthMall

Why is everyone calling god "him." This indicates he is distinguishable as a male. Maybe he is just a life force, or a source of energy and life. Interesting to see what people are thinking here.

If he sent us his son, does that not make him humanoid. At least able to breed. This is confusing

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

But we have absolutely no evidence that there ever was a first cause. And choosing to define God as 'first cause', again seems like special pleading.

Which came first, the chicken or the God of Chickens/Eggs.

Maybe the evolved together.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Which came first, the chicken or the God of Chickens/Eggs.

Greek philosophy teaches us that first there is an ideal abstract egg and an ideal abstract chicken, of which our terrestrial chickens and eggs are just pale shadows, mere approximations of ideal poultry. I think there's something about caves and shadows too.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

But we have absolutely no evidence that there ever was a first cause. And choosing to define God as 'first cause', again seems like special pleading.

William Lane Craig:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.


All that means is that there was a cause for it. I'm guessing that William Lane Craig would like to postulate an intelligent cause, which is not intrinsic to "cause" and therefore cannot be granted.

But the point is, there is a cause.

However, you said

Who created God? Was he able to create himself? (Oh, I forgot, that bit of speculation only works when you want it to - nobody can create themself - oh, oh! Except God!)

Got any arguments that hold water?

This doesn't work because the spiritual being that many religions look after is assumed to be, well, spiritual. Not being bound by the laws of physics, they can assume whatever they want. Origination is assumed to be possible.

And let's not forget that the first premise may very well be suspect, since quantum theory conflicts with causality.

[Ferre]

nevermind, removed my comment.

[DarthMall]

Why is everyone calling god "him." This indicates he is distinguishable as a male. Maybe he is just a life force, or a source of energy and life. Interesting to see what people are thinking here.

Religion started from worship of the sun. There is some pretty interesting stuff out there on this theory. It makes sense, with out the sun there would be no life.

[Atom]

Good question. I think that I call Him Him as a result of biblical brainwashing possibly, as well as capitalizing His name, I suppose.

[Rankenstein]

In answer to Craig's first point, if you can postulate a spiritual being not bound by laws of physics, I can postulate one simple rule: It is impossible for there to be nothing. This negates the need for a first cause, and it is rather neat. And unlike the God hypothesis, it makes an easily testable prediction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far I think that prediction's holding steady.

[John Scott]

It is impossible for there to be nothing.

He would grant that, and it jives with his Christian concept of a God who always was and who always will be.

The point you miss is that God is hypothesized to meet the need of a cause for physical matter.

You seem to think that physical matter can be caused without an cause, which seems a bit difficult.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

The point you miss is that God is hypothesized to meet the need of a cause for physical matter.

It's rather that I question the need for a cause of physical matter in the first place. More to the point, why doesn't a spiritual manifestation need a cause?

[John Scott]

It's rather that I question the need for a cause of physical matter in the first place.

You want to explain how you think physical matter could come into existence without a cause? Sounds intriguing.

More to the point, why doesn't a spiritual manifestation need a cause?

A spiritual manifestation's cause would be a spiritual being. A spiritual being is one that is not governed by the physical "cause and effect" law.

The spiritual thinkers tend towards believing the physical universe to be a construct of a spiritual being or beings. As such, the laws of physics do not apply. That is obvious from the postulated nature of the soul, of God, of gods, ghosts, miracles, etc, etc.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You want to explain how you think physical matter could come into existence without a cause? Sounds intriguing.

A spiritual manifestation's cause would be a spiritual being. A spiritual being is one that is not governed by the physical "cause and effect" law.

The spiritual thinkers tend towards believing the physical universe to be a construct of a spiritual being or beings. As such, the laws of physics do not apply. That is obvious from the postulated nature of the soul, of God, of gods, ghosts, miracles, etc, etc.

I'm not saying I have the answer. I'm saying I'm confident there is an explanation that doesn't rely on a deus ex machina, and that doesn't seek to dodge the rules by invoking something totally extrinsic to the laws of nature.

The very notion of me trying to explain the universe is really quite laughable anyway. Our greatest savants of any stripe don't have the answer, I'm convinced of that much. But I think scientists are more likely to find the answer than philosophers. Maybe philosophers help frame the right questions, but you can chalk the great advances in technology down to science, good old study of cause and effect, not religion.

[John Scott]

that doesn't seek to dodge the rules by invoking something totally extrinsic to the laws of nature.

You do know that the big bang theory does dodge the rules? Infinite density means that the the matter that constitutes your body occupied the same space that the entire universe occupies. Try putting the entire land mass of the United States into a thimble and you'll see the difficulty.

But I think scientists are more likely to find the answer than philosophers.

Philosophy is just a criticism of proposed truth. Scientists make up bull**** and logic tells them to try again.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Infinite density means that the the matter that constitutes your body occupied the same space that the entire universe occupies.

It can't have been infinitely dense, otherwise it still would be. Though it was incredibly dense, hence the incredible scale of the expansion. Every observation we can make confirms the Big Bang remains the most valid hypothesis. It's just a shame we can't see past it.

About scientists, it's fairer to say that scientists make up bull****, then test it. Most religions don't get round to the testing part of it. In fact, many of them actively discourage it. Funny that.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

It can't have been infinitely dense, otherwise it still would be.

You've just left the Big Bang theory behind and gone onto the Rankenstein Theory.

The Big Bang theory states that all matter was infinitely dense, occupying the exact same space as all other matter. Everything in the universe in a space so small it could fit on the tip of as needle.

The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the universe which has the primary assertion that the universe has expanded into its current state from an initial state of infinite density and temperature.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You've just left the Big Bang theory behind and gone onto the Rankenstein Theory.

lol, no, (and Craig's against infinite density, BTW) I think you'll find this quite interesting:
http://www.philoonline.org/library/morriston_5_1.htm

And when this guy below starts discussing the infinite density problem in earnest in section VI, all bets are off:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...cosmology.html

"Craig's arguments against infinite realities in his book are aimed at showing that no reality can be mapped onto a Cantorian transfinite set."

Couldn't have put it better myself

edit: and now it's bedtime for me. Cheers John, I was enjoying that...

[John Scott]

lol, no

Actually, yes. When you deny infinite density you deny the Big Bang theory. Infinite density is at the center of the Big Bang theory.

Craig's against infinite density

I couldn't care less what Craig is for or against. Craig is known to be a Christian so I'd guess that he isn't an adherent to the Big Bang theory, and consequently opposed to infinite density.

If you're a fan of science, I'd think you, not Craig, would be trying to support infinite density. But then you go allow yourself to think common sensically and dismiss the whole Big Bang theory. Dawkins would be furious with you.

His recent and related claim that 'a physical state in which all spatial and temporal dimensions are zero is a mathematical idealisation whose ontological counterpart is nothing'28 is made with no effort to support it and should be rejected as an unjustified scepticism about a widely held scientific thesis.

I'd have to agree with Craig there. It's like saying "zero represents the nothingness", and needs no argument. It's like saying "two is quantity more than one".

[jdspc]

Before goin off on this subject all participants should be subjected to a 'rub and tug'...
The balls that it takes to ponder existence is detrimental to creativity...why...
With minds like this I read from, your pitter patter can be better served elsewhere...
Such great minds...
I am not dawgin the engines that run these minds, but I do question the sincerity...are you doing this to refine the youth of a mind which may be waning from your aging process, or, to gather more info from the child that fears the future?

Pondering such matters does not bring you closer to truth...nothing will.

You know the truth...

But it does make nice fodder for exercising the last bastion of man...

Party on guys...I have no interjection other than fear...because that seems to always be the thread.

Remember, I am always wrong.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by jdspc

... Remember, I am always wrong.

How did you deduce this?

[jdspc]

Originally Posted by Atom

How did you deduce this?

Why Atom...The Bible tells me so...