The All-Powerful Creator

[enoob57]

I directly address the question. Your lack of understanding in not my problem.

See, this is the problem, you parrot what you hear and read, without thinking and without questioning and dismiss those that do, as lacking understanding. This tendency to dismiss with claims of ignorance all those who oppose is ofcourse is in itself part of the materialism playbook, so you can't even claim that as your own.

It is for this reason that I generally prefer chatting to actual scientists instead of science fanboys. Most honest scientists that aren't pushing an agenda are aware of the explanatory limitations as well as the assumptions they make, whereas the fanclub thinks it's all cold objective data gathered in the field. Also I find seasoned scientists are less hung up with the fact that they are knowledgable in a particular science field so there's less pretense and more straightforward dialogue.

OES has also questioned your ability to distinguish between proof, evidence, theories, research and interpretation and frankly, it's clear as day. Seriously, friend, I don't say this to be rude, but you've got to get over the pretenses and start using your head. Learn from 808state. Although I believe her criteria for looking at the evidence is unreasonable she at the very least makes her own points.

If this is the best you can do I see no reason to continue.

Whether you continue or not means little to me. It's obvious what you're doing here and I was actually addressing Viole's points before you jumped in, so do as you please.

How do you explain to one who has placed himself in the position of god and yet can not do one God Like Thing? It is so frustrating to witness and so the need of prayer to change the things I can not! Love Steven

[Fez]

I directly address the question. Your lack of understanding in not my problem.

See, this is the problem, you parrot what you hear and read, without thinking and without questioning and dismiss those that do, as lacking understanding. This tendency to dismiss with claims of ignorance all those who oppose is ofcourse is in itself part of the materialism playbook, so you can't even claim that as your own.

It is for this reason that I generally prefer chatting to actual scientists instead of science fanboys. Most honest scientists that aren't pushing an agenda are aware of the explanatory limitations as well as the assumptions they make, whereas the fanclub thinks it's all cold objective data gathered in the field. Also I find seasoned scientists are less hung up with the fact that they are knowledgable in a particular science field so there's less pretense and more straightforward dialogue.

OES has also questioned your ability to distinguish between proof, evidence, theories, research and interpretation and frankly, it's clear as day. Seriously, friend, I don't say this to be rude, but you've got to get over the pretenses and start using your head. Learn from 808state. Although I believe her criteria for looking at the evidence is unreasonable she at the very least makes her own points.

If this is the best you can do I see no reason to continue.

Whether you continue or not means little to me. It's obvious what you're doing here and I was actually addressing Viole's points before you jumped in, so do as you please.

How do you explain to one who has placed himself in the position of god and yet can not do one God Like Thing? It is so frustrating to witness and so the need of prayer to change the things I can not! Love Steven

Amen Steven. I stay out of debates in which I have little base knowledge unless I have a question that may further my understanding of the subject. mostly in these cases I just read and assimilate, and then make up my own mind. It is so easy to "cut and paste" ideas and theories while we have access to the vast amount of info on the net. But the ability of many to think for themselves, or approach a problem with objectivity, is slowly fading.

God created parrots for a reason, the internet was not one of them..... (nor was it for "Polly wants a cracker", but at least that is mildly entertaining the first time one hears it...)

[MorningGlory]

I directly address the question. Your lack of understanding in not my problem.

Wrong, it has been verified many times. Again, your lack of understanding of standard physics is apparent.

You are wrong again. In your posts you have rejected the corner stone of modern physics - quantum mechanics. This is one of the most tested and robust theories in science. To repeat, that you don't understand or don't like what science tells us about the world is not my problem.

Arguing over such basics is just silly and time wasting. If this is the best you can do, I see no reason to continue.

Now where have I read these statements before?

[enoob57]

I directly address the question. Your lack of understanding in not my problem.

See, this is the problem, you parrot what you hear and read, without thinking and without questioning and dismiss those that do, as lacking understanding. This tendency to dismiss with claims of ignorance all those who oppose is ofcourse is in itself part of the materialism playbook, so you can't even claim that as your own.

It is for this reason that I generally prefer chatting to actual scientists instead of science fanboys. Most honest scientists that aren't pushing an agenda are aware of the explanatory limitations as well as the assumptions they make, whereas the fanclub thinks it's all cold objective data gathered in the field. Also I find seasoned scientists are less hung up with the fact that they are knowledgable in a particular science field so there's less pretense and more straightforward dialogue.

OES has also questioned your ability to distinguish between proof, evidence, theories, research and interpretation and frankly, it's clear as day. Seriously, friend, I don't say this to be rude, but you've got to get over the pretenses and start using your head. Learn from 808state. Although I believe her criteria for looking at the evidence is unreasonable she at the very least makes her own points.

If this is the best you can do I see no reason to continue.

Whether you continue or not means little to me. It's obvious what you're doing here and I was actually addressing Viole's points before you jumped in, so do as you please.

How do you explain to one who has placed himself in the position of god and yet can not do one God Like Thing? It is so frustrating to witness and so the need of prayer to change the things I can not! Love Steven

Amen Steven. I stay out of debates in which I have little base knowledge unless I have a question that may further my understanding of the subject. mostly in these cases I just read and assimilate, and then make up my own mind. It is so easy to "cut and paste" ideas and theories while we have access to the vast amount of info on the net. But the ability of many to think for themselves, or approach a problem with objectivity, is slowly fading.

God created parrots for a reason, the internet was not one of them..... (nor was it for "Polly wants a cracker", but at least that is mildly entertaining the first time one hears it...)

I don't know FEZ I might go out on a limb for a cracker

[enoob57]

Our observable frame began to exist (space-time).

Everything within our observable frame that begins to exist has a cause (space-time).

Therefore our observable frame (space-time) had a cause.

I think you are making things too easy.

Your line of reasoning works if we put the observable events of the universe

at par with the universe itself. Just for sake of arguments we can call this

the principle of observable equivalence (POE):

POE: the universe and the events that populate it are both observable, therefore

if all events have a certain observable property, then the universe has this property,

too.

Since nobody ever observed births of universes from the outside (but we do for

the other events that populate it) this law is a metaphysical one.

I am not ready to accept this on the following grounds:

a) If I live in a box that contains only red objects (I am red too), what gives me

the right to tell that the box is red? The problem here is that I can observe the

redness of all objects around me, but I cannot leave the universe and observe it as

a whole. Therefore the observability of the events within the universe is different

from the observability of the universe as a block (which might actually be impossible)

b) There are properties of the observed events that cannot be transferred to the universe.

For instance, we can say that all events have a precise position in timespace or are affected by

timespace. We cannot say the same about the universe without creating a circular absurd proposition.

What gives us the guarantee that causality is not one of these properties? For instance, what is

the meaning of something beginning to exist if the time frame is not given?

But even if POE were correct, we are not entitled to ascertain any property about

the causation agent that created the universe.

I can for instance come up with my own syllogisms. For instance I can say:

1 - Everything that begins to exist has a natural cause

2 - The universe began to exist

3 - The universe has a natural cause

Or

1 - Everything that begins to exists is caused by the conversion of some limited pre-existing energy

from a form into another

2 - The universe began to exist

3 - The universe is the result of the conversion of some pre-existing energy from a

form into another

This latest one could prove that creation ex-nihilo never took place.

I can also write:

1 - Everthing that begins to exist has an uncounscious cause

2 - The universe began to exist

3 - The universe has an unconscious cause

You might argue that it is not true that everthing has an uncounscious cause, but

unless you state that everything has a conscious cause (begging the question)

you have no guarantee that the birth of the universe has indeed a conscious cause.

Old Old argument Plato and Aristotle- whole to particular or particular to whole. There is a picture (Painting) where Plato is on one side and Aristotle the other walking in a crowded hall way of the time and Plato is point upward and Aristotle is pointing down. The true beauty of this painting is they are on the plane of the Hallway .... when one gets out of the seat they really can't get out of dreams become reality and truth is lost! When one applies the reality of infinite to this situation that loss of truth can be forever....

In all this you have just described the reason why they have worshiped the created thing instead of the One Who created- it the biggest whole they can see- oooops P.O.E.... If you are unwilling to become child like and believe He is outside of this P.O.E. observable existence... Very simply santa and sin has destroyed that ability with in you...... Examine this truth- if all of us are in the same boat of P.O.E. how is it we can learn anything from one another isn't it all dreams that we can get out of the particular to observe the whole? It is here that God has designed the vehicle of faith in that you must commit yourself to His presence while sitting in that seat.... When He removes you from said seat and sits yourself before Himself -(The Whole of All Particulars)- your present now is the eternity of your choice ->for you will have either called Him a liar or He will know you in truth... Love Steven

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Why are you still borrowing from my worldview by using immaterial concepts?

Our observable frame began to exist (space-time).

Everything within our observable frame that begins to exist has a cause (space-time).

Therefore our observable frame (space-time) had a cause.

I think you are making things too easy.

So your solution is making them needlessly complicated.

Your line of reasoning works if we put the observable events of the universe

at par with the universe itself. Just for sake of arguments we can call this

the principle of observable equivalence (POE):

This really is just of the sake of argument (also know as being argumentative) since it's totally inapplicable.

For the temporal frame it is understood that effects have causes, without which there would be no pretense of scientific investigation. Everything in the continuum is part of the continuum, so your later arguments are an accuracy fail.

To escape the impossible inevitability of an infinite regression of passed events, there must have been a cause of the temporal frame, since when considering the temporal frame, effects have causes; therefore the temporal frame had a cause. Not only does this account for time (part of the continuum) and space (part of the continuum), but this is also an explanation simultaneously of the origin of all causes (part of the continuum) within the temporal frame.

This doesn’t suggest that outside the temporal frame effects have causes – it suggests nothing about what’s beyond the temporal frame, except that the cause of the temporal frame must have come from that which transcends the space-time frame and the limits thereof (space and time, leading to immaterial and timelessness of the cause).

It is inescapable, deductive reasoning, and introducing unnecessary and unverified specifics (natural causes) is both inaccurate and non sequitur.

I could also say that all the causes are undirected, or composed of the element of fire or resulted from a star turtle spilling the elixir of cause-ether, but none of those things are necessarily the case, so they're left off of the necessary equation.

And laws don't become metaphysical if extrapolated to events that have not been observed. If we discover a mammal fossil with dinosaur remains in its stomach, it isn't a metaphysical principle to suggest that the mammal ate the dinosaur simply because no one may have observed that to have occurred.

You're pushing to change the inherent properties of immaterial things to material things if we admit that they're real. It doesn't make immaterial things material, or physical principles metaphysical ones by acknowledging their reality.

You're trying to rebrand reality according to your bias to make your points, but your bias is clearly demonstrated to be totally incorrect.

Edited March 8, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Sam, let me ask you something. Why is it that you ramble off textbook definitions of terms instead of actually addressing issues? The question wasn't, "Sam, please tell us what the Hubble constant is", but rather, how can you claim that an unverified and derived constant such as the Hubble constant consitutes as a piece of evidence?

I directly address the question. Your lack of understanding in not my problem.

This is theorical physics, which is a) unverifiable and b) irrelevant to the claims that causality will break down in the absence of time.

Wrong, it has been verified many times. Again, your lack of understanding of standard physics is apparent.

We don't have a problem with biology, modern or not, but we do have a problem with the ideological assumptions subtly imported into it and peddled as 'science'.

You are wrong again. In your posts you have rejected the corner stone of modern physics - quantum mechanics. This is one of the most tested and robust theories in science. To repeat, that you don't understand or don't like what science tells us about the world is not my problem.

Arguing over such basics is just silly and time wasting. If this is the best you can do, I see no reason to continue.

Sam, I have trouble believing that you don't see the contradiction you're struggling to introduce here.

As I pointed out just above, time itself had to have a cause, since the space time continuum is not eternal (nor could it be).

Therefore the sense of talking about causation outside of time.

If your way around the inescapable conclusion is to suggest that time is not linear and therefore causation isn’t necessary, then you’ve necessarily adopted the problem that causation isn’t necessary and scientific investigation relies first and foremost on the concept that causation is necessary.

Without the fundamental prerequisite of causation there is no scientific investigation.

So, deductively and inescapably (whether you like it or not) you’re stuck in a dilemma of choosing between the necessity of an immaterial, eternal (and as I pointed out earlier personal) cause of the universe if you accept the necessity of causation, or you can reject causation and have no reason to assert anything scientifically, including any of the things you point to that you think suggest that the universe is old, or that evolution ever occurred.

If time is not linear and therefore causation is not necessary for explanations then anything could have happened in any non-linear timeframe.

By jumping into bed with a non-linear explanation, you’ve cheated on your relationship with scientific investigation, and now you’ve been caught with your pants down so it won’t work to equivocate and tell them that they’re both pretty theories and you love them both and need them equally.

They’re mutually exclusive mistresses and you have to pick just one, settle down and make and honest theory of her.

Edited March 7, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Since when are constants considered 'evidence'?

Eitherway, OES isn't asking you *how* the age is calculated, but rather why the calculation should be regarded as accurate given the plasticity of your beliefs regarding causality.

Asking me why and how are really the same thing in this case. Hubble's constant is a measure of the expansion of the universe. It is essentially based on the speed of light. A rough estimate of the age of the universe can be made by simply taking the inverse of Hubble's constant (there's actually a bit more to it, but that's the basic idea).

Did you know that it is estimated that we can observe about one, one trillionth of one two-hundred billionth of the universe?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

In either case, I'm referring to standard physics (and it has to be pretty standard for me to know about it!). I guess I shouldn't be surprised that many posters here will take exception of modern physics since it also appears that they also don't accept much of anything modern biology has to offer either.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that modern physics relies on causation as a given?

Does it work if time can jump around and causes and effects don't really apply anymore?

You are wrong again. In your posts you have rejected the corner stone of modern physics - quantum mechanics.

First, no he didn't.

Second, how about causation for a cornerstone of physics?

You can't deny the real cornerstone and still get the point... the teachers of the Law made that mistake:

"Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'? Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but anyone on whom it falls will be crushed" (Luke 20:17-18)

Edited March 7, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog

[LuftWaffle]

Hi there Viole,

I think you are making things too easy.

Your line of reasoning works if we put the observable events of the universe

at par with the universe itself. Just for sake of arguments we can call this

the principle of observable equivalence (POE):

POE: the universe and the events that populate it are both observable, therefore

if all events have a certain observable property, then the universe has this property,

too.

Since nobody ever observed births of universes from the outside (but we do for

the other events that populate it) this law is a metaphysical one.

I am not ready to accept this on the following grounds:

a) If I live in a box that contains only red objects (I am red too), what gives me

the right to tell that the box is red? The problem here is that I can observe the

redness of all objects around me, but I cannot leave the universe and observe it as

a whole. Therefore the observability of the events within the universe is different

from the observability of the universe as a block (which might actually be impossible)

What you're referring to here is the fallacy of composition, which basically states that what is true for the parts isn't necessarily true for the whole.

Note the term 'necessarily' in the above definition of the fallacy. Just because an argument has the form of the fallacy doesn't outomatically make it fallacious.

Consider these two examples:

A droplet of water weighs 1 gram, the ocean consists of droplets of water therefore it weighs 1 gram. This is clearly fallacious.

Now suppose I say, a droplet of water is wet, the ocean consists of droplets of water, therefore the ocean is wet. Now the statement is true, right?

The fallacy of composition depends on the type of property being referenced in the parts and in the whole. If quantitative properties are referenced, then generally a fallacy is committed, however if qualitative properties are referenced, then the statement generally isn't fallacious.

The particular property we're talking about here is causation. One cannot say object A is more caused than object B. Because the property of 'being caused' or 'having been caused' isn't quantitative but qualitative.

So, no reasonable causal objection can made be within the universe as well as about the universe itself, even more so since causation deals with existence and we know that both the universe as well as its constituent parts do actually exist and began to exist.

This brings me to an interesting point. It is only recently that atheists started objecting to premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Before that arguing against premise 1 was considered by atheists and theists alike to be rather absurd. Most objections focussed on premise 2, with ideas such as the steady state theory and the oscillating universe model. The reason for this is that advances in science have provided overwhelming evidence that the universe did in fact have a beginning, and as such atheists are forced to accept premise 2. The only recourse then is to do what was once considered to be absurd, arguing that somehow some things can begin to exist from nothing at all, without any reason.

I think this historical fact flies in the face of atheism's noble claims of merely following where the evidence leads.

b) There are properties of the observed events that cannot be transferred to the universe.

For instance, we can say that all events have a precise position in timespace or are affected by

timespace. We cannot say the same about the universe without creating a circular absurd proposition.

What gives us the guarantee that causality is not one of these properties? For instance, what is

the meaning of something beginning to exist if the time frame is not given?

Yes, but as you yourself stated, "...this law is a metaphysical one."

The law of causation is a metaphysical law, just like the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. These laws are not bound by time and space. They are what's called self-evident truths, which is precisely why atheists never questioned premise 1 in the past.

Ultimately what it comes down to is that either something caused the universe, or nothing did. Claiming that without time causation degrades, still implies that either something or nothing caused the universe.

I can for instance come up with my own syllogisms. For instance I can say:

1 - Everything that begins to exist has a natural cause

2 - The universe began to exist

3 - The universe has a natural cause

This syllogism is invalid for 3 possible reasons:

A)If everything had a natural cause and the universe had one too then the natural cause of the universe must itself have a natural cause. We must then ask what caused it, so instead of answering the question you've just pushed the cause one step back.

B)If you wish to argue that this prior natural cause existed eternally, then if all the necessarly and sufficient conditions for causing the universe existed for eternity then the universe would have formed an eternity ago, which has severe problems in terms of traversing an infinite and thermodynamics etc. One must ask why only 15 billion years ago and not 16 or 17 or a gazillion? (Note I'm using uniformitarian timescales here for the sake of argument)

C) What proof is there for this natural cause? If you're going to take it on faith that there is a natural cause out there for the universe, then why are Christians wrong for believing that God caused the universe? Why is materialist's faith more acceptable than theist's faith?

1 - Everything that begins to exists is caused by the conversion of some limited pre-existing energy

from a form into another

2 - The universe began to exist

3 - The universe is the result of the conversion of some pre-existing energy from a

form into another

Again, the problem is if the pre-existing energy that is capable of causing the universe existed before, items (A), (B) and © above apply.

There's are additional problems:

D) Why did the raw energy produce a universe, and not a donkey, or an ashtray or a potplant? Why a universe? And importantly why such an incredibly fine-tuned universe?

1 - Everything that begins to exist has an uncounscious cause

2 - The universe began to exist

3 - The universe has an unconscious cause

This is easily falsifiable by showing premise 1 to be invalid. This very sentence that I'm typing here cannot reasonably be said to have come from an unconscious cause, and I can only conclude that you're conscious when you respond on this forum.

If you're not conscious while posting on this forum, and thus your thoughts penned down on this forum do not have a conscious cause, then, may I ask who or what I am speaking to?

As a final point I want to urge you to take a look at the inconsistency in the responses to the cosmological argument.

On the one hand you're saying that premise 1 is absurd because the causation regarding the universe is irrelevant, but then in the same breath you're attempting to offer natural causes for the existence of the universe.

If the question is silly why acknowledge it by attempting to answer it. If you truly believed that universes can pop into being from nothing at all, why still attempt to offer something? Is it that deep down you know that the universe must have had a cause, but your commitment to materialism doesn't allow you to admit it?

Doesn't all this affirm what I've been saying? The problem with the Cosmological argument isn't so much with the premises but rather the conclusion. If the Cosmological argument didn't point to God, then it's premises would be readily accepted...