Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:This implies that God is also finite - which i can accept but am sure you will not... The universe could rebirth, does that then mean that there is finality to God?.

Actually, no such thing. The first step of the Cosmological Argument does not even require a reference to God at all.

There is no inference in it but that there is, and can be, no infinite regress of causal chains. That's it. End of point.

Ok. So we can both agree that God did not create the universe?

ken wrote: I have already shown how 'your' maths and 'your' logic does NOT work.

No, actually. You have shown yourself why you think it doesn't work. And you've convinced yourself that the mathematical proof doesn't count, somehow. That's not at all the same thing.

wtf is not the only one who is, what you call, "stuck".

Yes, I accept that you are stuck too.

And never will happen if you are waiting for all people to say what you want them to say now. Show Me HOW 'your' maths and logic proves that the Universe had a beginning, then I will agree with and say that also. Again, until then I wait.

I think you need to go back and go over the demonstrations I offered earlier on. But if they don't satisfy you, that isn't their fault, perhaps. It may be you're not seeing what's there.

To recap: you have found that you cannot count the infinite set of integers, treating each as a causal prerequisite for the next. You have not done so, and even admit you couldn't. But somehow that fact doesn't translate into a realization for you, and I have no handy explanation for why that is. It's not a fault of the demonstration, clearly. However, I cannot remain infinitely concerned whether or not you catch up, one way or the other. So you will have to fend for yourself henceforth. If you cannot see it, you cannot see it. I don' t deny you can't. I can't change your mind for you either.

attofishpi wrote:Ok. So we can both agree that God did not create the universe?

No, we can't.

We can only, so far, agree that there is no infinite causal regress. That's it. We're agreed on no predications involving the word "God" yet.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Ok. So we can both agree that God did not create the universe?

No, we can't.

We can only, so far, agree that there is no infinite causal regress. That's it. We're agreed on no predications involving the word "God" yet.

Then our human concept of 'TIME' is at question. Since TIME is only the occurrence of an EVENT - then where does that leave us - where was the primordial event?

Immanuel Can wrote: Actually, no such thing. The first step of the Cosmological Argument does not even require a reference to God at all.

There is no inference in it but that there is, and can be, no infinite regress of causal chains. That's it. End of point.

Well I got all that, it seemed pretty clear to me.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Actually, no such thing. The first step of the Cosmological Argument does not even require a reference to God at all.

There is no inference in it but that there is, and can be, no infinite regress of causal chains. That's it. End of point.

Well I got all that, it seemed pretty clear to me.

Hey - i paid enough attention to also comprehend that. #: )

Immanuel Can wrote: Actually, no such thing. The first step of the Cosmological Argument does not even require a reference to God at all.

Perhaps not but the basic goal of the Cosmological Argument is to indicate the existence of God, so I was just stating that point from the beginning.

attofishpi wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Ok. So we can both agree that God did not create the universe?

No, we can't.

We can only, so far, agree that there is no infinite causal regress. That's it. We're agreed on no predications involving the word "God" yet.

Then our human concept of 'TIME' is at question. Since TIME is only the occurrence of an EVENT - then where does that leave us - where was the primordial event?

Sorry to quote myself - but it leaves us at the point of no understanding - chaos in fact - something i have considered to be God's birthplace.

attofishpi wrote:

attofishpi wrote: Then our human concept of 'TIME' is at question. Since TIME is only the occurrence of an EVENT - then where does that leave us - where was the primordial event?

Sorry to quote myself - but it leaves us at the point of no understanding - chaos in fact - something i have considered to be God's birthplace.

It is my understanding that time started at the instant of creation, the Big Bang. Science has nothing to say about before the Big Bang, in effect it is a meaningless question.

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

attofishpi wrote: Then our human concept of 'TIME' is at question. Since TIME is only the occurrence of an EVENT - then where does that leave us - where was the primordial event?

Sorry to quote myself - but it leaves us at the point of no understanding - chaos in fact - something i have considered to be God's birthplace.

It is my understanding that time started at the instant of creation, the Big Bang. Science has nothing to say about before the Big Bang, in effect it is a meaningless question.

Well then. You are back at what caused the 'big bang' and what caused the cause of the 'big bang'. Our understanding of reality does not allow us to comprehend the truth, perhaps dark matter\energy chaos.

attofishpi wrote:People have real experience of God - like you might have of the experience your own child. ...

Not quite, as I can stand there and ask others if they can experience my child at the same time in front of me. If they say they can't then I seriously would need to consider what I'm experiencing with respect to my child existing.

I thought you had experience of a 'sage' not a 'God'?

Its a far cry from the memory of a dead mother, that's the past tense - no longer 'exists'. ...

And this 'God' so far cannot even make that claim.

On the whole, i think IC has been kicking a lot of atheists in the arse where their brains are and you all come up short sighted but blinded by each others face as its up the arse of the next atheist in the chain gang.

Given that you think your subconscious is not you I think I know who's up their own arse when it comes to 'God' existing thanks.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:People have real experience of God - like you might have of the experience your own child. ...

Not quite, as I can stand there and ask others if they can experience my child at the same time in front of me. If they say they can't then I seriously would need to consider what I'm experiencing with respect to my child existing.

I thought you had experience of a 'sage' not a 'God'?

Its a far cry from the memory of a dead mother, that's the past tense - no longer 'exists'. ...

And this 'God' so far cannot even make that claim.

On the whole, i think IC has been kicking a lot of atheists in the arse where their brains are and you all come up short sighted but blinded by each others face as its up the arse of the next atheist in the chain gang.

Given that you think your subconscious is not you I think I know who's up their own arse when it comes to 'God' existing thanks.

I'll take you on as i did before where you were left with the only final answer that could be given - and bailed the thread like a coward because you came to real eyes there was only one answer left, and it confirmed my argument. I'll start the thread - just say the word.

This time you'll have the benefit of foresight.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Actually, no such thing. The first step of the Cosmological Argument does not even require a reference to God at all.

Perhaps not but the basic goal of the Cosmological Argument is to indicate the existence of God, so I was just stating that point from the beginning.

Oh, fair enough...yes, it is. But I find that when you start the Cosmological Argument, there are people who jump straight to their visceral dislike of the idea of God, bypassing all the evidence the argument actually offers, and failing to realize how powerful the argument actually is. So I think we win a lot by going slowly and carefully, not reaching beyond ourselves, but only asking people to believe one step at a time. If we move too fast, there's a real danger they're going to think we're only making a "faith based" argument, and stop considering it at all. So slowly but surely on that.

At some point, if they're personally determined to dismiss the idea of God regardless of all evidence, they'll jump off the train, it's true; but maybe they won't forget that they rode it for three or four stages before they did that. And that may well be enough to show them that their resistance to it was only visceral and not actually intellectual. Anyway, that's my hope in moving carefully.

attofishpi wrote:Sorry to quote myself - but it leaves us at the point of no understanding - chaos in fact - something i have considered to be God's birthplace.

At stage 1, I am not assenting to any predications regarding God. (Sorry to quote myself.)

attofishpi wrote:...
I'll take you on as i did before where you were left with the only final answer that could be given - and bailed the thread like a coward because you came to real eyes there was only one answer left, and it confirmed my argument. ...

What are you babbling about now? Point it out and I'll reply as presumably I forgot about it for some reason.

I'll start the thread - just say the word. ...

The word.

This time you'll have the benefit of foresight.

I don't even appear to have the benefit of memory.