Jump to content
IGNORED

Concerning the Nature of the Universe


theInquirer

Recommended Posts

On 1/31/2019 at 6:46 AM, Who me said:

Yes, but done on a calculator gets the answer I supplied.

In mathmatical, philsophical and every practical way nothing does not cause something to happen.

There has to be a cause.

Atheists would love your analysis, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2019 at 8:00 PM, ByFaithAlone said:

Ok so this is a very interesting question and the argument itself is rather old and hinges on the idea of contingent vs. necessary beings. In this case 'being' just refers to a given state of affairs and does not imply sentience. In terms of Western philosophy it was used by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Basically the premises and conclusion go roughly as follows: 

1. Every contingent being as a reason for it's existence. 

2. Our universe is a contingent being and must have a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 

3. The universe exists.  

4. The universe (being contingent) must have an explanation for it's existence (Principle of Sufficient Reason).  

5. Therefore the universe has a necessary being as a cause for it's existence. 

Your question (and please correct me if I am wrong) concerns the universe itself and where it could derive it's existence from. In logic terms contingent beings are those that begin and/or cease to exist. You and I for example, are contingent beings. The question is if the universe should also be labeled as contingent. Before the 1920s this was one of the larger objections to this argument. Some thought the universe may be infinite and static. There were philosophical objections to that argument but there was no hard scientific proof either way. However, modern views of cosmology have significantly changed. Most scientists agree that our universe (or any inflationary universe) is past-finite or in somewhat more technical terms geodesically past-incomplete. This would make our universe a contingent being. Now of course there are always new objections being raised about the various premises and the past-finite nature of the universe but I hope that helps as a springboard for you to explore a bit more.    

I enjoyed the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas some 50 years ago when I was in college.  The problem with this set of arguments is fundamental; the fact is nothing ceases to exist.  Things merely change or transition to another form; sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.  And sometimes we don't have the technology that can measure the change.  Does the human soul really weigh 21 ounces?

The law of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, along with the first law of thermodynamics comprise the most fundamental laws of physics. Entropy (the subject of the second law) and energy (the subject of the first law) and their relationship are fundamental to an understanding not just of physics, but to life (biology, evolutionary theory, ecology), cognition (psychology).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  17
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,264
  • Content Per Day:  1.74
  • Reputation:   1,674
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 2/2/2019 at 2:11 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Atheists would love your analysis, imho.

Then you have never talked to an atheist.

Start demonstrating that because the universe is scientifically demonstrable that it has a beginning and throw in the logical reasoning that everything that has a beginning has a cause and you have an atheist who can see where one is going and is doing all they can to avoid the conclusion that something unknown caused the universe to begin.

Is this a line of argument you can make to an atheist

Can you argue that fine tuning implies a creator?

That morality implies a creator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2019 at 12:38 AM, Who me said:

Then you have never talked to an atheist.

Yes.

On 2/4/2019 at 12:38 AM, Who me said:

Start demonstrating that because the universe is scientifically demonstrable that it has a beginning and throw in the logical reasoning that everything that has a beginning has a cause and you have an atheist who can see where one is going and is doing all they can to avoid the conclusion that something unknown caused the universe to begin.

The science supports a finite universe.

On 2/4/2019 at 12:38 AM, Who me said:

Is this a line of argument you can make to an atheist

Can you argue that fine tuning implies a creator?

That morality implies a creator?

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  17
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,264
  • Content Per Day:  1.74
  • Reputation:   1,674
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 2/6/2019 at 1:46 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Yes.

The science supports a finite universe.

?

Talk to your work colleges, take a book in on creationism and leave it out, or be seen reading it at lunch. It will generate conversations.

 

Demonstrate that scientifically that the universe had a beginning and ask 'What caused it to exist?' and you'll quickly learn how illogical non christian thought and argument is.

Fine tuning. atoms/molecules are held together by a force that is very precise. if it was only a little bit stronger those atoms/molecules would not be able to part to enable chemical reactions to take pace and if a little weaker would not be able to hold together.

Gods character is that he is 'good' therefore creation reflects Gods character, why else does every person believe in right and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Who me said:

Talk to your work colleges, take a book in on creationism and leave it out, or be seen reading it at lunch. It will generate conversations.

I have no work colleagues.  I was fired age discrimination.  I am 69 years old.

1 hour ago, Who me said:

Demonstrate that scientifically that the universe had a beginning and ask 'What caused it to exist?' and you'll quickly learn how illogical non christian thought and argument is.

Philosophically, you get back to the argument of Thomas Aquinas that there must be a Prime Mover.  Evolutionist deny this when they espouse a finite universe.  Scientifically, we now no with reasonable certainty that the universe had a beginning but is still expanding at an accelerating rate.

1 hour ago, Who me said:

Fine tuning. atoms/molecules are held together by a force that is very precise. if it was only a little bit stronger those atoms/molecules would not be able to part to enable chemical reactions to take pace and if a little weaker would not be able to hold together.

Gods character is that he is 'good' therefore creation reflects Gods character, why else does every person believe in right and wrong.

The Supremacy of Christ (Colossians 1:16-17)

16  For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.  17  He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  17
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,264
  • Content Per Day:  1.74
  • Reputation:   1,674
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 2/9/2019 at 1:43 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

have no work colleagues.  I was fired age discrimination.

Sorry to hear that. If fit and active there probable are opertunities either for paid work or for voluntary work where you can engage people in conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2019 at 10:32 AM, Who me said:

Sorry to hear that. If fit and active there probable are opertunities either for paid work or for voluntary work where you can engage people in conversation.

I am still trying for full-time work.  I have two physical disabilities which make another job somewhat more difficult.  And then, there's the age factor; I'm 69 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  57
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   13
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  05/08/2002

On 1/26/2019 at 10:59 PM, Dove said:

Because it would have no purpose.  Everything ranging from the largest galaxy to the smallest subatomic particle was designed with a purpose.  Without a creator to assign this purpose the universe would not exist because it would not have a reason to exist.

But my question was more having to do with how we know that it has purpose in the first place.

And why inherently does it have to have these certain reasons to exist?  What is existence based off of at all?  That's like saying that if a clock breaks, it shouldn't exist anymore because it's not fulfilling the purpose for which we made it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  107
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   41
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

This is the matter or mind question. To solve it you first need to understand that empirical proofs are not as useful as usual because they prequisit that there is an empirical „world“. Instead you use pure scepticism: the only thing that you can be sure of logical and without further external proof is that your mind exist. But the concepts in your mind are something that are distinct from the world. So this concepts are all created out of nothing because from your knowledge your mind started in nothing and they are hence unique to you.You hence have a clue that mind in general can create itself - and concepts - out of nothing but you assume that the mind can be created out of matter although there is on the highest level of reasoning- pure scepticism - no proof of it. If we would cut all sensory information from a baby (which is unethical) - maybe in lack of other tasks it would start to slowly build worlds too? Why do we think matter is more „creative“ than mind? Since I already witnessed that my mind created itself out of nothing all my instincts tell me that a mind is the start of everything - because it is more likely to possess the power to create itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...