Philosophy Now Forum

I hope IC can just ignore you for the time being so we can get on with stages 2 and 3..

thedoc wrote:

ken wrote: If either of you had read what I write, then you would have noticed that I said I can prove with evidence HOW an uncause cause, sometimes known as God, creates ALL things.

If you have such proof than present it, don't just say that you have it, that is an empty claim without the actual proof.

And it will remain an empty claim. I am in no rush. I did not reiterate that for the purposes of doing it. I repeated it to only show how different it is from what you believed I wrote. You wrote, "
In previous posts you have clearly stated your position that the Universe is infinite in extent and duration, and you have stated that you do not believe that God exists."

I said I can prove to you some thing, however, I will not even bother to now, for three reasons,
1. You have proven you are unable to read, see, and understand the words I actually write.
2. You already believe you have and know the facts.
3. I am only here to learn how to communicate better. In this thread I am just trying to learn how to show immanuel can how what immanuel can writes is illogical to Me.

As has been proven countless times already, even evidence can not override a belief. The belief you have, and dearly hold onto, will not yet allow you to become open to the Truth.

attofishpi wrote:I hope IC can just ignore you for the time being so we can get on with stages 2 and 3..

Rest assured, IC will ignore anything that he would find inconvenient to acknowledge.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:How can stage 2 of YOUR argument involve asking us a question?

Because I would like to what other people think.

I do not know what your argument is going to be so I do not have a clue what YOUR uncaused cause is going to look like.

You don't even really believe in stage 1. You only granted it as a gesture, but you've made it very explicit you don't actually believe it. So I can't do anything for you, anymore than one can build a house without a foundation.

Of course I do not believe it. I clearly staed that. But it also should be of no surprise to any person who has noticed anything I have written here. I neither believe nor dosbelieve (in) anything whatsoever. I remain open always. You said you can provide certain knowledge so I am waiting for that. I stated I failed to follow your logic in stage one and you did not want to discuss what I have written about it so let us move on to stage 2.

Immanuel Can wrote:Can't help you. Sorry.

What are you on about now? I have only asked you to move onto stage 2 so that we can then move onto stage 3. That is how you can help Me.

ken wrote: I have only asked you to move onto stage 2 so that we can then move onto stage 3.

You could just skip stages 2 and 3 and cut straight to the conclusion if you're getting impatient: God is in his heaven and all is well. The End.

The poetic Creation story in Genesis explains time rather lucidly from the point of view of axiomatic being. God created the sun and the moon. And God created all relative things, land, sea, live systems etc .

Time is one of the structures of relativity, therefore the creator i.e. being itself cannot be within time but must have created it. Beginnings and endings refer to relative position in time. Beginnings and endings cannot therefore refer to being itself.

There is no origin of being itself as being itself is not an attribute. The only alternative to being itself is non-being, which is absurd as at the very least, as Descartes discovered, there is thinking going on.

Harbal wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I hope IC can just ignore you for the time being so we can get on with stages 2 and 3..

Rest assured, IC will ignore anything that he would find inconvenient to acknowledge.

That is a given.

uwot wrote:That is a given.

I just though it worth mentioning for the benefit of anyone unaware of the futility of entering into any kind of debate with IC.

attofishpi wrote:I hope IC can just ignore you for the time being so we can get on with stages 2 and 3..

Yep, I can.

thedoc wrote:It would seem that there are several possibilities, it has been suggested that the Universe might have just started by itself, vacuum genesis is one of those candidates.

Is your thought that a vacuum genesis would be uncaused? However, a vacuum is not "nothing," is it? What we would need for an "uncaused" universe is a situation in which there actually WERE no preconditions of any kind. Because if there's even one precondition, then by definition, we do not have an "uncaused" situation at all, but just a different set of causal factors, or so it seems to me.

Another possibility is that God (of some sort) started it.

Yes; but I'm in no hurry to rush to that alternative. We've got time. And meanwhile, I'd hope to take a fair look at what else is out there.

One suggestion is that this universe is just one of a cycle, but that leads to an infinite regression and that has been ruled out, or it just moves the uncaused cause back to the first universe that existed, and we are still looking for the answer. I believe there are several versions of vacuum genesis but they all come down to the same answer in the end.

I think so.

Take the Multiverse Hypothesis, for example. It presupposes that somewhere "out there" there is a mechanism of generation that keeps popping out "bubbles," each one being its own universe. Now, aside from being an entirely speculative idea, it immediately produces the problem of accounting for the "generator." So that which seems at first to get us out of the infinite regress problem just doesn't: we end up just taking a new hypothesis on faith -- but this time without the benefit of any empirical evidence capable of supporting that belief.

To me, the resort to things like the Multiverse Hypothesis shows that skeptics are not at all opposed to faith. They just don't want it to end up being faith in God.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I hope IC can just ignore you for the time being so we can get on with stages 2 and 3..

Yep, I can.

We know.
What I find odd is that the only people on this forum interested in a logical argument for the existence of god, are the two who claim to have had personal experience of it.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Another possibility is that God (of some sort) started it.

Yes; but I'm in no hurry to rush to that alternative. We've got time. And meanwhile, I'd hope to take a fair look at what else is out there.

I think thedoc might be on to something, IC, had you considered that possibility? I think you're being wise not to rush into any rash judgements though, besides, it's always nice to save the best till last.

Harbal wrote:I think thedoc might be on to something, IC,...

Do go ahead. What seems intriguing to you there?

To answer your further question, I have heard of some "cyclical universe" models (the Multiverse Hypothesis and the Infinite Universes idea are two common ones; less common is some sort of multi-layered reality theory) but so far have seen none that don't have obvious faults that rule them out, most importantly that these ones lack all empirical evidence; and some even require, as part of the theory itself, that we can never have evidence for them. (Here, I'm thinking of something like the Multiverse Hypothesis, which implies that what's being produced are genuinely alternate universes, meaning that they cannot come into contact with ours without ceasing to be "alternate" anymore. And that seems convenient! )

Anyway, I would think we'd need something more than a theoretical construct to warrant our belief, wouldn't you? After all, isn't that what skeptics often (erroneously) say -- that belief in any Supreme Being is gratuitous and lacks empirical basis? Well, if that's any kind of reasonable criticism of the idea of a God or gods, it's equally valid as a criticism of purely speculative theoretical models which make -- and deny they can make -- reference to empirical observation. At least, I would think so. I would think we'd have to see some evidence, to warrant belief, don't you?

However, nobody's seen everything yet, me included -- so I'd be happy to see what alternative you know. Please, do expatiate if you can.

Immanuel Can wrote: To answer your further question, I have heard of some "cyclical universe" models (the Multiverse Hypothesis and the Infinite Universes idea are two common ones; less common is some sort of multi-layered reality theory) but so far have seen none that don't have obvious faults that rule them out, most importantly that these ones lack all empirical evidence; and some even require, as part of the theory itself, that we can never have evidence for them. (Here, I'm thinking of something like the Multiverse Hypothesis, which implies that what's being produced are genuinely alternate universes, meaning that they cannot come into contact with ours without ceasing to be "alternate" anymore. And that seems convenient! )

Anyway, I would think we'd need something more than a theoretical construct to warrant our belief, wouldn't you? After all, isn't that what skeptics often (erroneously) say -- that belief in any Supreme Being is gratuitous and lacks empirical basis? Well, if that's any kind of reasonable criticism of the idea of a God or gods, it's equally valid as a criticism of purely speculative theoretical models which make -- and deny they can make -- reference to empirical observation. At least, I would think so. I would think we'd have to see some evidence, to warrant belief, don't you?

However, nobody's seen everything yet, me included -- so I'd be happy to see what alternative you know. Please, do expatiate if you can.

You must have a reason for asking me about these various varieties of Universe but I can't imagine what it is. Are you confusing me with someone else? Would you mind expatiating?

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:It would seem that there are several possibilities, it has been suggested that the Universe might have just started by itself, vacuum genesis is one of those candidates.

Is your thought that a vacuum genesis would be uncaused? However, a vacuum is not "nothing," is it? What we would need for an "uncaused" universe is a situation in which there actually WERE no preconditions of any kind. Because if there's even one precondition, then by definition, we do not have an "uncaused" situation at all, but just a different set of causal factors, or so it seems to me.

In this case a vacuum does not refer to the usual concept of a vacuum, but to "nothing" As in a complete emptiness, time does not even exist as nothing is happening. So in this scenario there are no preconditions, The universe itself is seen as uncaused.