God as the first cause.

[yrreg]

It seems that that people who bring in the false dichotomy issue are motivated by the need to not answer the question whether there has always been something.

 

So, as I already offered, don't give attention to the yes or no words, just answer "Has there always been something?"

 

If you answer "There has always been something," then you are into the actual objective reality of existing things wherein we humans are situated and everything we talk about are situated.

 

However, should you answer "There has not always been something," then you are saying there was a situation wherein there was nothing.

 

Will you please explain how we came to exist from that situation where there was nothing?

 

 

I see that at this very moment as I write this message "2 User(s) are reading this topic: 1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users (inscription at the bottom of the screen), I invite the guest to register and participate in this thread.

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

Time is also a thing existing, and also space, and also other dimensions whatever that some people want to postulate although there is no evidence.

 

In this respect of things existing vs nothing, God is also a thing, but for Christians He is the creator of everything else.

 

 

So, if you people want to be focusing on always and therefore it is indicative of time, and want to make an issue of it; then tell me are you of the conviction that outside time there was nothing?

 

And you can say the same thing about space, and also all the other speculative dimensions you want to postulate; but what is your point?

 

That outside time there was nothing and also outside space, but there are other dimensions where there is no God?

 

And that these dimensions are the origin of our actual objective reality of existing things wherein we humans are situated and everything we talk about?

 

 

Well, if you postulate other dimensions where there is no God but these dimensions are the origin of the world wherein we are existing, what is there to prevent us from also postulating there are no such dimensions, or that in these dimensions God is present and is their creator?

 

 

 

Yrreg

[Moontanman]

It seems that that people who bring in the false dichotomy issue are motivated by the need to not answer the question whether there has always been something.

 

So, as I already offered, don't give attention to the yes or no words, just answer "Has there always been something?"

 

If you answer "There has always been something," then you are into the actual objective reality of existing things wherein we humans are situated and everything we talk about are situated.

 

However, should you answer "There has not always been something," then you are saying there was a situation wherein there was nothing.

 

Will you please explain how we came to exist from that situation where there was nothing?

 

 

I see that at this very moment as I write this message "2 User(s) are reading this topic: 1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users (inscription at the bottom of the screen), I invite the guest to register and participate in this thread.

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

Time is also a thing existing, and also space, and also other dimensions whatever that some people want to postulate although there is no evidence.

 

In this respect of things existing vs nothing, God is also a thing, but for Christians He is the creator of everything else.

 

 

So, if you people want to be focusing on always and therefore it is indicative of time, and want to make an issue of it; then tell me are you of the conviction that outside time there was nothing?

 

And you can say the same thing about space, and also all the other speculative dimensions you want to postulate; but what is your point?

 

That outside time there was nothing and also outside space, but there are other dimensions where there is no God?

 

And that these dimensions are the origin of our actual objective reality of existing things wherein we humans are situated and everything we talk about?

 

 

Well, if you postulate other dimensions where there is no God but these dimensions are the origin of the world wherein we are existing, what is there to prevent us from also postulating there are no such dimensions, or that in these dimensions God is present and is their creator?

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

 

This is total horse feathers, it is not evidence of anything but your propensity to spout bullshit. I said that yes, something has always existed, now you need to show some evidence of god... any god... anything supernatural would even be better than your brand of bullshit...

[doG]

Well, if you postulate other dimensions where there is no God but these dimensions are the origin of the world wherein we are existing, what is there to prevent us from also postulating there are no such dimensions, or that in these dimensions God is present and is their creator?

 

Yrreg

That right there must be the part you simply cannot understand.

 

pos·tu·late

1 : demand, claim

2 a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of

b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

 

To postulate something is to assume that it is true. There is no point in postulating the existence of any god in any dimension because there is ZERO evidence to support that assumption, none, zero, zip, nada.... In the search for real truth it is a cop out to assume anything.

 

Sorry, no winner this time, please try again!

[yrreg]

Well, I don't read any constructive utterances so far.

 

 

Yrreg

[Moontanman]

Well, I don't read any constructive utterances so far.

 

 

Yrreg

 

 

i answered your question, i said yes, something has always existed, now time for you to put up or shut up....

[yrreg]

040512thr 0856h

 

 

 

I will be back later in the evening or tomorrow morning.

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

Okay, you agree with me that you see there has always been something.

 

What is my point?

 

 

The thread is about:

 

"God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God."

 

 

What do you say, can you reason from the fact that there has always been something to the fact of God's existence as the first cause of everything not God?

 

 

 

I will be back...

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

[Moontanman]

040512thr 0856h

 

 

 

I will be back later in the evening or tomorrow morning.

 

Threats are meaningless on the net...

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

Okay, you agree with me that you see there has always been something.

 

What is my point?

 

 

The thread is about:

 

"God as the first cause. Seeking opinions on God as the first cause of everything not God."

 

 

What do you say, can you reason from the fact that there has always been something to the fact of God's existence as the first cause of everything not God?

 

 

 

I will be back...

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

 

Reason? Really? You are using reason? Evidence is what you promised and it is also what is required, reason can be used to justify anything, like a earth centered universe with planets all orbiting the earth but evidence prohibits this from being true no matter how reasonable you can make it seem...

[Arete]

It seems that that people who bring in the false dichotomy issue are motivated by the need to not answer the question whether there has always been something.

 

Given the repetition of this ultimatum I'm gathering you don't understand the uncompelling nature of trying to provide definitive answers to questions for which there is no evidence in either direction. Any assertion is a complete speculation, any further discussion of causation is speculation reliant on speculation.

 

If you have evidence to support your own conclusions on the ultimatum you pose it would be great to see it, otherwise what you're presenting us with is a question to which a positive answer requires a blind faith assertion, which you're unlikely to get from a rational/scientific audience. In a scientific context, it's a spurious line of reasoning, devoid of value.

[Schrödinger's hat]

Any assertion is a complete speculation, any further discussion of causation is speculation reliant on speculation.

 

Well, perhaps we can speculate then, if it will stop the nonsense.

yrreg. Assume someone/everyone has answered yes and respond accordingly.

 

Then assume someone/everyone has answered no and respond accordingly.

[Moontanman]

I would like to ask if Time had to start at the beginning of the universe. i have discussed this before and my idea is that time has always existed, time is a fundamental part of existence with out time there could be no existence but why does it have to begin with the beginning of our universe. is there a reason why or is it just an assumption that is it part of our current theories or does it have to be that way due to the mathematics i am trying to understand why time has to have a beginning.

[HuMoDz]

Well, if you postulate other dimensions where there is no God but these dimensions are the origin of the world wherein we are existing, what is there to prevent us from also postulating there are no such dimensions, or that in these dimensions God is present and is their creator?

 

What are you defining as a "dimension", another universe?

Edited April 6, 2012 by HuMoDz

[mooeypoo]

So you are not going to answer the points we raise but instead bring up more points.

 

All hail intellectual integrity.

 

~mooey

It seems that that people who bring in the false dichotomy issue are motivated by the need to not answer the question whether there has always been something.

 

So, as I already offered, don't give attention to the yes or no words, just answer "Has there always been something?"

 

If you answer "There has always been something," then you are into the actual objective reality of existing things wherein we humans are situated and everything we talk about are situated.

 

However, should you answer "There has not always been something," then you are saying there was a situation wherein there was nothing.

 

Will you please explain how we came to exist from that situation where there was nothing?

 

 

I see that at this very moment as I write this message "2 User(s) are reading this topic: 1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users (inscription at the bottom of the screen), I invite the guest to register and participate in this thread.

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

Time is also a thing existing, and also space, and also other dimensions whatever that some people want to postulate although there is no evidence.

 

In this respect of things existing vs nothing, God is also a thing, but for Christians He is the creator of everything else.

 

 

So, if you people want to be focusing on always and therefore it is indicative of time, and want to make an issue of it; then tell me are you of the conviction that outside time there was nothing?

 

And you can say the same thing about space, and also all the other speculative dimensions you want to postulate; but what is your point?

 

That outside time there was nothing and also outside space, but there are other dimensions where there is no God?

 

And that these dimensions are the origin of our actual objective reality of existing things wherein we humans are situated and everything we talk about?

 

 

Well, if you postulate other dimensions where there is no God but these dimensions are the origin of the world wherein we are existing, what is there to prevent us from also postulating there are no such dimensions, or that in these dimensions God is present and is their creator?

 

 

 

Yrreg

[Edtharan]

You have not considered the possibility of creation of an Universe with both H_ns (a universe with necessary suffering to fulfill the works of God) and H_{not S} (a universe without any suffering) simultaneously existing in the cosmos.

 

I know there is not much evidence for the latter universe to prove my case but it is a possibility and hence the conclusion from empirical observation is not quite compelling.

Sorry been away for a bit.

 

Actually, I did consider it. Part of the chain of reasoning covers that.

 

Essentially, because the God is all powerful, then He could achieve anything any way He wanted to. This means that He could achieve the same ends as the God of your H_ns universe without the need to include suffering (essentially there is a H_{not S} universe that has the exact outcomes of any H_ns universe available to an all powerful, all knowing God).

 

This means that any suffering is there because the God wanted the suffering only for the sake of that suffering. With an all powerful God, the means are irrelevant, only the ends (so the ends can never justify the means).

[immortal]

Sorry been away for a bit.

 

Its okay.

 

(essentially there is a H_{not S} universe that has the exact outcomes of any H_ns universe available to an all powerful, all knowing God).

 

Agreed, a morally perfect, all knowing God should create an universe with H_{not S}.

 

With an all powerful God, the means are irrelevant, only the ends (so the ends can never justify the means).

 

Agreed, so only the purpose is important for God which means God could allow drought, famine and other natural calamities since it is required for his purpose and also could have created us in a way that we under go no suffering at all.

 

This means that any suffering is there because the God wanted the suffering only for the sake of that suffering.

 

Now the fact that suffering exists doesn't necessarily mean that God wanted it, we might be responsible for our own suffering and if God has indeed created a H_{not S} universe then we should be able to access that universe to evade all suffering. In the absence of evidence for such an universe your conclusion seems to be valid for now.

[Dekan]

Show me evidence that there is not an invisible teapot orbiting Neptune.

 

A teapot is an article manufactured by humans. Humans have not sent any teapots to Neptune.

 

No teapots are likely to have been manufactured by Neptunians. Because the plants required to grow the tea, couldn't live in Neptune's poisonous atmosphere.

 

Even if they could, why would Neptunians put their methane tea into invisible pots, then launch the pots into orbit?

 

This is pretty convincing evidence to put before a jury - no invisible teapots currently orbit Neptune. I rest my case.

[iNow]

A teapot is an article manufactured by humans. Humans have not sent any teapots to Neptune.

 

No teapots are likely to have been manufactured by Neptunians. Because the plants required to grow the tea, couldn't live in Neptune's poisonous atmosphere.

 

Even if they could, why would Neptunians put their methane tea into invisible pots, then launch the pots into orbit?

 

This is pretty convincing evidence to put before a jury - no invisible teapots currently orbit Neptune. I rest my case.

Your case is flawed as it assumes that the teapot was the relevant concept in the challenge and misses the point entirely.

[doG]

A teapot is an article manufactured by humans. Humans have not sent any teapots to Neptune.

 

No teapots are likely to have been manufactured by Neptunians. Because the plants required to grow the tea, couldn't live in Neptune's poisonous atmosphere.

 

Even if they could, why would Neptunians put their methane tea into invisible pots, then launch the pots into orbit?

 

This is pretty convincing evidence to put before a jury - no invisible teapots currently orbit Neptune. I rest my case.

Your case has more holes in it than a Menger sponge...

[scourge]

There is no evidence that anything doesn't exist. None for Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, fire breathing dragons, etc.. Are you trying to say we should believe in everything until someone can prove it doesn't exist?

 

The difference here is that all those things are things that supposedly live in THIS universe. And they do not explain why the universe exist. This is not a rational comparision. They do not represent the same thing at all. All these things are things that live in the world and are visible.

 

There is likely more than one reason why the tooth fairy and santa claus dont bring up debates on their existance. It just didnt "Happen" to be God that all these debates are centered around. There is a reason why people believe in god and not the tooth fairy.

 

Oh wow didnt realize i was commenting on such an old post lol he he.

[Moontanman]

The difference here is that all those things are things that supposedly live in THIS universe. And they do not explain why the universe exist. This is not a rational comparision. They do not represent the same thing at all. All these things are things that live in the world and are visible.

 

There is likely more than one reason why the tooth fairy and santa claus dont bring up debates on their existance. It just didnt "Happen" to be God that all these debates are centered around. There is a reason why people believe in god and not the tooth fairy.

 

Oh wow didnt realize i was commenting on such an old post lol he he.

 

And what precisely would that reason be? te he he he....

[imatfaal]

The difference here is that all those things are things that supposedly live in THIS universe. And they do not explain why the universe exist. This is not a rational comparision. They do not represent the same thing at all. All these things are things that live in the world and are visible.

 

There is likely more than one reason why the tooth fairy and santa claus dont bring up debates on their existance. It just didnt "Happen" to be God that all these debates are centered around. There is a reason why people believe in god and not the tooth fairy.

 

Oh wow didnt realize i was commenting on such an old post lol he he.

 

Santa and the Tooth Fairy are, by their own narrative, very much supernatural - and they are definitely not visible. They arrive and do their stuff whilst children are asleep (sounds creepy written out like that) you never get to see them - and when you do seem them it's only your mum or dad you have glimpsed not the real tooth fairy. It is a very rational comparison - and without prior accepted knowledge they explain the universe as well as any other story. Why people believe in god is the subject of many threads - unsurprisingly we haven't reached a universally accepted conclusion.

[doG]

The difference here is that all those things are things that supposedly live in THIS universe.

Really? For me they're not things that supposedly live anywhere, they are purely fictional.

 

And they do not explain why the universe exist.

So! Is there some mandatory rule somewhere that says man MUST know why the universe exists? Just because we don't know why is not a reason to make up an answer.

 

This is not a rational comparision. They do not represent the same thing at all.

Why not? They all represent fictional entities.

 

All these things are things that live in the world and are visible.

Can you prove there are no invisible leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, santa clauses, etc.?

 

There is no reason whatsoever to believe in any answer simply imagined by man to answer questions he can't answer, particularly those from millennia ago when man thought eclipses were the work of some sun god or other deity. If we are going to believe the imagination of ancient cultures then maybe we should go back to human sacrifice to keep our planet safe too, huh?

[robheus]

Now, the God I am talking about is the God in the Christian faith Who in His fundamental relation to the universe is that He is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

 

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about, I identify that something always existing with God, and wherefore God is the first cause of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

 

 

"There is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about" ???

 

This makes absoluty no sense to me. What is it supposed to mean that there was time *before* there was time?

 

Where do you get onto the idea there needs to be God in the first place?

 

(NB. and to attack the idea of God, there is no reason to suppose that God would need to exist, in order to answer the question of "why is there anything at all existing (a universe, etc.)", since when you claim that God (or any other existing entity) is the answer to that question, the question simply get rereaised and is re-formulated as "why does God (or any other entity you see fit for that purpose) exist"?)

Edited June 18, 2012 by robheus