Yes. But only in part. God is not bound by definitions of existing and non-existing (as we perceive it at least). Our definition of existence is bound by what we know.
I have some imaginary dice in my hands. I decide what properties they have.
Explain to me the difference between your view of God and my imaginary dice and the difference in properties that something "not bound by definition" is different from "imaginary".
I'm not really expecting an answer to be honest. If you openly state that you make things up about your god as you go along, you're outside the realm of reason and discussion about it is futile.
and just proclaim the universe "was always there"?
Because........*drum roll* it wasn`t. Who are you trying to fool here?, Theists or yourselves?
Don't be stupid. I've said about 20 times already "replace universe with multiverse at your leisure". Since you're more keen on picking apart terms than actually addressing points, here's the child's version;
1) Gods create universes. Gods are complex. Complex things require an explanation just as much as the universe does.
2) Explain why you see "God always existed" as acceptable, but "multiverse always existed" as unacceptable.
3 pages since I asked these things and I've still yet to see a direct reply. Are you going to accept cosmological argument is nonsense or shall I just take your constant evasion as a yes?
It's not that God gets a "free pass" in our deliberations, it's that his existence is the only explanation that resolves the age-old conundrums that these discussions inevitably brickwall into.
An entity that can create universes must be complex. Complexity requires an explanation. You are simply deferring the question from "Where did the universe come from?" to "Where did the creator of the universe come from?".
You do not get a free pass to skip this question with some "it was always there" nonsense. If you are satisfied with that answer, then why bother with gods at all and just proclaim the universe "was always there"?
You are at best delaying the question, and at worst special pleading.
Your a complete moron... Christians give more to charity then atheist or any other religion 100:1
And if you say your not Religious your also a fucking idiot. A religion is nothing but a set of beliefs. so therefore by definition you are a religious man.. soo go suck one.
@Hookah, You know whats funnier? "A man who married his own cousin said we are related to bananas, THAT MUST BE TRUE!!!"
"What religion are you?" "None."
"Oh okay. I guess that's your religion then." "Really? I see. Do you play sports?
There is no time before the big bang. I will point again that time is an illusion that runs across the dimensions of our universe(This automatically destroys Multiverse by the way). So only something eternal/beyond time was present.
Now repeat after me, time is an illusion x 100.
The universe looks pretty intelligently created. Very precise and perfect. The slightest change in the system would render it naught/nothing. Engineered for life.
Now repeat after me, universe is engineered at the highest precision. No luck, No randomness. x100
And its called God(Eternal + Intelligent). Our pea-sized brains can only comprehend what we know created, logical fact we cant look beyond that. We`re in the box. At some point its good to make peace with that truth. Having this arrogance, wont get you far because you are just denying the obvious and lying to yourself. Whats the point?. I mean, you believe our intelligence and consciousness arose from non-matter!, How do you then find this so hard to believe?. Granted, we may not know this God on an intimate level, but thats another story.
Don't dodge.
Answer my question.
Why can a God create itself/always existed, but a universe/multiverse cannot?
[The universe/multiverse] is the uncaused cause. This requires it to have spontaneously created itself. Why would it do so?, How would it do so?, Its simply not possible and makes no sense however you look at it. From no-thing comes something.
Quote:
[God] is the uncaused cause. This requires it to have spontaneously created itself. Why would it do so?, How would it do so?, Its simply not possible and makes no sense however you look at it. From no-thing comes something.
Please explain why you see one of these as acceptable, and the other as unacceptable.
So let me get this straight. You 100% believe or know that there is no intelligence behind creation?. Is that your view?. Whether it is detectable or not.
No. I never said that. I was explaining to you why the cosmological argument is not a "logical truth".
This is why the cosmological argument is wrong. It's special pleading.
Its the logical truth. It doesn`t require you to admit there is an intelligence behind the creation of the Universe, Even if it remains silent or hidden from your understanding.
Listen to Sagan.
What you're saying is;
-------------------------
1) Universe exists. Universe had a cause.
2) The cause requires a cause. To avoid an infinite regress, there must be an uncaused cause.
3) The uncaused cause created the universe.
Therefore an uncaused cause caused the universe. The uncaused cause always existed. -------------------------
Sagan simplifies this;
-------------------------
1) Universe exists. Universe is the uncaused cause.
Therefore the universe is the uncaused cause. -------------------------
Cosmological argument basically adds an unneeded step.
"We know the universe didn't always exist."
False. We know there was a big bang which resulted in all visible matter. Nothing more. Any extra claim on top of this requires evidence.
If the universe did not always exist and we are part of a multiverse, as brane theory suggests, replace all the above instances of "universe" with "multiverse". The same outcome can be derived.
The signs of it are everywhere. Intelligent design is 100% fact if you study the data.
Please watch this.
There are a lot of "design choices" regarding humans alone that are, frankly, stupid. No designer would give humans an appendix, for instance. It is a vestigial and harmful relic of our evolutionary past.
Not saying you dont agree with my point, rather you dont understand what Im trying to say. Which may be my fault in perhaps not explaining it as well.
I do understand. I watch William Lane Craig make this point in every one of his debates. I presume, since he is the one most commonly associated with this argument, that you trust him to explain it properly.
Sagan puts it more eloquently than I ever could. Basically, if you're saying that the origin of the "first cause" requires no explanation, then why not skip a step and say that the origin of the universe/big bang itself requires no explanation?
This is why the cosmological argument is wrong. It's special pleading.
Religion actually grounds a person in stability. Even though a religion might be wrong/false in one way or the other. Its a way of life. Religious people are less likely to fall into drugs, gangs, low self esteem, suicide, depression, violence etc. Since all religion more or less advocates teachings against that sort of hopeless lifestyle. A lifestyle devoid of hope, purpose, reason, and any meaning.
Hmm... Ive been pondering this for awhile now and realized that Its commonly thought some people use less % of their total brain capacity than others. That is why you probably cannot understand, and your own intelligence betrays you. Honestly speaking, not trying to be insulting, but I cant fathom how what Im trying to explain to you , you cant seem to grasp.
You invoke cosmological argument. I ask you to back it up. This is what I get in return.
I don't agree with this and I don't find that study as being conclusive evidence of the decline of religion. To me, this aligns with the nature of modern youth to be less and less concerned with spirituality until later in life. Societal pressures have far more pronounced effects on religion amongst youth than science will likely ever have in our lifetimes. Science doesn't push conformity nor does it lash out at you for being different; social norms do. As a 22 year old Mormon, my beliefs are rarely challenged by science. Instead, my beliefs are challenged on a daily basis by those who find my decision to reject profanity, alcohol, drugs and sex as contrary or "silly." None of which have anything to do with scientific advancement.
Couldn't disagree more. I'd state the exact opposite. Societal pressures are what keep people religious. I'm sure you'd disagree as a mormon, because you're not surrounded by others of the same faith. Most people, not just Christians, are surrounded by people of identical faith. Christians socially exile apostates. Muslims just kill them.
Religious beliefs tend to become more important when the question of raising a family surfaces. Given that this is also becoming less of a priority for modern couples (get married later, don't always have kids), it is logical that religion is also taking a back seat to personal interests. This ALSO relates to societal pressures considering that there is a rise in the "need" to be independent. Science isn't telling people to postpone having a family in favor of pursuing self-interests.
We're living in a fairly selfish age where youth are encouraged both to conform and focus on their own needs. Those needs being ones that align with social expectations such as sexual reputation. Being a virgin past high school is taboo. What does that have to do with science? Drug use is moving towards legal recreational consumption. Science for the win? Nudity is quickly becoming an acceptable form of family entertainment. Is that science too? The world is all about "does it feel good? Great!" It can be difficult to find religion in the midst of that.
This sounds more like a rant than a point. I think you're associating religious decline with moral decline?
If so, I disagree. Some of the world's most atheistic and secular countries like Sweden, Norway and Japan, are also the ones with the lowest rates of crime.
"No affiliation" atheists/agnostics makes up <1% of the US prison population, while being 15% of total US population.
To me, science is more likely to affect the middle-aged person's religion conviction than a twenty-something. I think this particular statement is one of your less thoughtful remarks.
The fire has to be kept burning. Although I do sincerely believe that as the world's scientific literacy improves, religion will decline. You already see this. 85% of Americans believe in a god. 7% of NAS (American's top scientists) believe in a god. Belief declines as education improves. This, like it or not, is a brute fact. There could be other causes (I personally doubt it), but numbers do not lie and do not care for opinions.
0
Yep and we're all A-Thorists. I guess that's our religion.
0
Atheists don't believe that.
0
I have some imaginary dice in my hands. I decide what properties they have.
Explain to me the difference between your view of God and my imaginary dice and the difference in properties that something "not bound by definition" is different from "imaginary".
I'm not really expecting an answer to be honest. If you openly state that you make things up about your god as you go along, you're outside the realm of reason and discussion about it is futile.
0
Don't be stupid. I've said about 20 times already "replace universe with multiverse at your leisure". Since you're more keen on picking apart terms than actually addressing points, here's the child's version;
1) Gods create universes. Gods are complex. Complex things require an explanation just as much as the universe does.
2) Explain why you see "God always existed" as acceptable, but "multiverse always existed" as unacceptable.
3 pages since I asked these things and I've still yet to see a direct reply. Are you going to accept cosmological argument is nonsense or shall I just take your constant evasion as a yes?
0
An entity that can create universes must be complex. Complexity requires an explanation. You are simply deferring the question from "Where did the universe come from?" to "Where did the creator of the universe come from?".
You do not get a free pass to skip this question with some "it was always there" nonsense. If you are satisfied with that answer, then why bother with gods at all and just proclaim the universe "was always there"?
You are at best delaying the question, and at worst special pleading.
0
Right and my question is why a god can have these attributes but the universe/multiverse cannot.
0
"What religion are you?"
"None."
"Oh okay. I guess that's your religion then."
"Really? I see. Do you play sports?
"No."
"I see. I guess that's your sport then.
I love TW's posts. They're comically stupid.
0
Don't dodge.
Answer my question.
Why can a God create itself/always existed, but a universe/multiverse cannot?
0
Please explain why you see one of these as acceptable, and the other as unacceptable.
0
No. I never said that. I was explaining to you why the cosmological argument is not a "logical truth".
0
So the creation of the universe requires an explanation, but the creation of the creator does not.
This is special pleading.
Listen to Sagan.
What you're saying is;
-------------------------1) Universe exists. Universe had a cause.
2) The cause requires a cause. To avoid an infinite regress, there must be an uncaused cause.
3) The uncaused cause created the universe.
Therefore an uncaused cause caused the universe. The uncaused cause always existed.
-------------------------Sagan simplifies this;
-------------------------1) Universe exists. Universe is the uncaused cause.
Therefore the universe is the uncaused cause.
-------------------------Cosmological argument basically adds an unneeded step.
"We know the universe didn't always exist."
False. We know there was a big bang which resulted in all visible matter. Nothing more. Any extra claim on top of this requires evidence.
If the universe did not always exist and we are part of a multiverse, as brane theory suggests, replace all the above instances of "universe" with "multiverse". The same outcome can be derived.
Cosmological argument is illogical.
Please watch this.
There are a lot of "design choices" regarding humans alone that are, frankly, stupid. No designer would give humans an appendix, for instance. It is a vestigial and harmful relic of our evolutionary past.
0
I do understand. I watch William Lane Craig make this point in every one of his debates. I presume, since he is the one most commonly associated with this argument, that you trust him to explain it properly.
Sagan puts it more eloquently than I ever could. Basically, if you're saying that the origin of the "first cause" requires no explanation, then why not skip a step and say that the origin of the universe/big bang itself requires no explanation?
This is why the cosmological argument is wrong. It's special pleading.
0
Wrong.
79% of the US is Christian (2007). 79% of the US prison population is also Christian.
Your point is demonstrably false. Curious if you'll admit it though. I think you're immune to logic at this point.
0
You invoke cosmological argument. I ask you to back it up. This is what I get in return.
"You don't agree with my point? You're stupid."
0
Couldn't disagree more. I'd state the exact opposite. Societal pressures are what keep people religious. I'm sure you'd disagree as a mormon, because you're not surrounded by others of the same faith. Most people, not just Christians, are surrounded by people of identical faith. Christians socially exile apostates. Muslims just kill them.
This sounds more like a rant than a point. I think you're associating religious decline with moral decline?
If so, I disagree. Some of the world's most atheistic and secular countries like Sweden, Norway and Japan, are also the ones with the lowest rates of crime.
"No affiliation" atheists/agnostics makes up <1% of the US prison population, while being 15% of total US population.
The fire has to be kept burning. Although I do sincerely believe that as the world's scientific literacy improves, religion will decline. You already see this. 85% of Americans believe in a god. 7% of NAS (American's top scientists) believe in a god. Belief declines as education improves. This, like it or not, is a brute fact. There could be other causes (I personally doubt it), but numbers do not lie and do not care for opinions.