This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Can we prove Aristotle’s “Prime Mover”:Everything that happens is caused by something else?Then what caused the first cause?
POINTS TO PONDER
The cause of the universe might be eternal, thus eliminating the need for a cause. As people have accepted the Big Bang Theory, so this objection has fallen out of favor.
It is worth pointing out that time is an aspect of the universe,without the universe, there is no time. It has existed at every point in time and that at no point in time has there been no universe.
1.Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause?
2. Universe began to exist therefore it has a cause "the first cause" or was the matter already present that caused it?
4. If it was the first cause then what caused the first cause?
Closing Statement from Sunny Qureshi
The Debate was a mixture of philosophical and scientific arguments presented by members.
The question still remains unanswered as both schools of thought were inconclusive on the God or no God debate.
The problem is of the fact that both atheists and theists are both opposed to each others "belief". Even in science, hypothesisation which is a kind of belief that has not been proved exists.
This debate and other debates will remain inconclusive unless and until a Collaborative stance is not adopted by the two.
Sunny Qureshi
Jim Winning
David Russell
There are three possibilities for the the existence of the universe:
1. It is Uncaused
2. Self-caused
3. Caused
The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.
It cannot be self-caused since it would have to first "not exist" in order to need causing.
Yet, it would have to exist in order to have the ability to cause.
It's absurd to conclude that the universe was in a state of existence and non-existence in order to cause it's own existence.
Therefore, the universe must have had a cause by another source.
I once heard a scientist say that he believed the universe was uncaused, and has always existed. My question is that is if it's acceptable to have an uncaused universe, why would it not be acceptable to have a creator that is uncaused? When a member of the scientific community argues for the eternal existence of the universe, do they not commit the same fallacy as the theologian who agues for the eternal existence of God?
Gabo Moreno 100+
Interesting though that the opposite tends to be true, that those arguing for a god don't even imagine that we could stop in the realm of the real, of nature itself. They can't grasp the concept.
[EDIT: There are many other things wrong with David's comment, but I think the answers for those other wrongs were provided by some other commenter here before.]
E G 10+
I'm answering to your last reply to me .I was a bit busy in the last time .
My idea was simple : to say that no god exist because there are so many claimed to exist it's obviously fallacious because there is a logical possibility one of them to exist and the rest to be square circles . If you think according to this logical possibility you can start 'narrow it down' .
Of course you can think that none of them is existing even though it wasn't proven they all were made up as you suggested .
I can't get to the true one by pure reason (not only by reason) , guiding me after some facts maybe I could but then it wouldn't be by pure reason . For example : I never excluded the possibility of seeing God and after that to think reasonable (by reason) that God exist . I never excluded the personal experiences , you remember that ?
How the hell do I do that ? you know we have some 'revelations' , with their help ........ or maybe contacting God .
Why would I bring you evidence ? if I can't , what about it ? if you wanna know if God exist or not go get them yourself , God to take care of Himself sharing them to you , why don't you try to contact Him ?
Gabo Moreno 100+
Thanks.
E G 10+
Yes, I know what you meant when you told me to read again .
It's pretty logical what you said but it's not an answer to my idea (stated again in my last reply) :
-I talked about possibilities , if we had have evidence for one possibility we wouldn't have called it possibility , we would have called it 'reality' . Therefore I don't need evidences to think at a possibility and to try to figure out if it can be part of reality or not .
Should I ask you to read again my comments ?
And you continue : it is worse you say to try to 'narrow it down' as long as I agree with you that by reason we can't get to god , in other words evidences are from the start excluded . My reply : well , I talked about 'pure reason' and about reason if nothing, let's say, special don't happen . But if it does , we can get to god by reason . In other words everything ends up to a kind of another of revelation . This is why also I replied at :' how the hell do I do that ?" by saying to contact the gods to see if they answer, or by saying to look in their revelations to can understand a bit what are we dealing with ..... and so on .
I thank you for your time and patience ........... never forget (as long as we'll continue to meet here on Ted) , I'm not afraid to be found wrong and neither of hard words .
E G 10+
You can't say a toy car company is 'impotent' because creates toy cars and not real cars .
. As I said then I don't know why God did this and I can't label it as wrong and bad , in fact no human being can . It is proven more and more that your understanding of the Bible is defective (if I use the same word) .
Another thing that was nonsensical at you is that you seem to have tried to found the wrongs in the Bible than to try to understand it (this is about your arguments from the same reply then). See the big picture first and after that we'll take care of unimportant (from the Bible perspective) claims like :
-who killed who from whose order
- the idea that the light existed before being created the stars ; in fact here we have the whole idea about creation ..... and so on.
Gabo Moreno 100+
I read the bible trying to understand Eduard. I heard it all. I found the defects in all the answers. the special pleadings, the non-sequiturs, the contradictions, the equivocations, the false premises. I heard all the excuses, I heard all whatever. In the end, to believe that the Christian god is real requires you to believe that first, and that whatever we can't answer is because this god is incomprehensible. That we can't know why a perfect god would create to later get angry, for example drowning its failed creation out of anger as if this was the creation's fault. Sending so many to hell. We don't know, but "God" must have a perfect reason. Right. With that position, all gods will end up being real. You can't take this position of "god is love even if I don't have answers to obvious logical problems" with your god, and yet reject all the other gods. That would mean that you are reading the Koran just to find the worse in it ... the Popolvuh just to find the worst in it ... and so on.
Sunny Qureshi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
It basically says that in order to favor one outcome, a person makes special allowances for that outcome. without giving any tangible evidence as to why that particular outcome should be allowed those special allowances and not the rest of the outcomes. In case of the Kalam argument, it gives a rule. "Everything has a cause" But it is making a special plea for God, by saying that God is a special case and requires no previous cause. Why? Why should this cause it calls God be granted an exemption to the cause-effect rules. If you are going to grant exemptions why not give that exemption to Big Bang lets say and be done with it.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Maybe there is negative version of our universe that cancels our one out.
Felix Malmenbeck 10+
You may already be aware of this, but what you're asking is very similar to asking "Does the Kalām cosmological argument stand up to scrutiny?"
As such, my recommendation to you would be to search the internet for people arguing for and against this argument.
A good place to start is, as always, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument
(see also the video at the end of this post)
I'm a university Physics student planning on getting my Master's in theoretical physics, but I'd be lying if I said I understood much about the science of the early universe. As such, I won't try to account for modern theories of the beginning of the universe. I would however like to make one more reflection:
A common feature of these discussions is "the law of cause and effect"; causality. I'd like to point out that this law is based on observations made within the universe; between different events in spacetime.
If there was no time before the big bang, we cannot assume that the law of cause and effect holds sway here.
We can ask if it's still valid; we can posit it as a hypothesis and see where it takes us. What we can't do, however, is to use it as proof for anything until we've shown that it's actually valid. If we do, we have to rely on an appeal to intuition...
...and while intuition is a great tool, and not to be underestimated, in science, it takes a back seat to evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg
Sunny Qureshi
People during the deadly tornado at kentucky, began praying, Why was praying the first thing that came to her mind? link attached below is quite evident of a spiritual connection that each one of us has during fear, we connect with god:
http://youtu.be/2Po7Xyn-Amg
Franciz Desouza
For example in the human brain there is no connection between the electrical impulse & chemical reaction that creates consciousness when we are asked to visualize or think about an object" in Science its called a hard problem that one is unable to solve. Or even Plank epoch 10 to the power -40 what physicits are unable to solve
whats beyond plank epoch ?
One God is the infinite Consciousness that the mind cannot comprehend
Gabo Moreno 100+
Then you say that there is no connection between our brains activity and consciousness. Really? Because I have read plenty or articles that map those activities quite well. So well that if scientists were scanning your brain, they would know if you are happy, angry, lying, and a sort more of emotional and intellectual activities going on. There are even substances in the brain that have been connected to such feelings as love, and similar substances can make volunteers stop feeling such things as love while the substances are in their bodies. And I am not even touching the surface of what is known today.
Best, and hopefully you will learn something about your sources of information now. Believe as you wish, that's your right. But think more carefully about whether what you are saying is true given your sources. Philosophy alone won't work with well-informed people. Nor will quotations to scientists or personalities taken out of context for propagandistic effect. Nor will faulty logic, nor creationists' misunderstanding of what nature should be without a god.
Sunny Qureshi
How should i end this topic for an upcoming lecture at sukkur university Pakistan. I went through the thread and found things to be inconclusive regarding the first cause theory?
Linda Taylor 50+
Gabo Moreno 100+
It would be an honour if you add me to your list of favourite members.
I think the point by Felix is quite good (If you don't see it, it starts with these words: "It is worth noting that the big bang theory"). Summarizes a lot, and warns against the gratuitous (I would add "fallacious") intent of using causality for inferring things about a process that's really outside of any ideas/experiences about causality. All of that without being as aggressive as I tend to be.
:-)
Best!
Sunny Qureshi
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Same with diseases of the mind such as alzheimers etc.
Someone with severe dementia or brain damage does not have the same level of consciousness as a healthy person.
Anthony Rifflard
Here is an offering from my perspective. If we look at matter from a science point of view that everything is energy and that matter is energy condensed to a certain vibrational frequency. This would suggest that even before matter existed the intelligent energy that created it or chose to vibrate at this current frequencies level has eternally been there. If we look at time which means nothing in the flow of eternity... time began when matter began for time is nothing but a way to keep track of somethings distance from something elses in the field of matter itself.
In essence if everything came from that eternal energy that gave birth to matter itself than we are that source exploring itself and all that is capable. A process of evolution, for we can see that reguardless of the endless perspectives and opinions and the differences there of bottom line is, everything evolves. And its increasing exponentially, here in we can all form our own opinions and choose the ones that work best for our own personal paradigms. Knowing that there is never just one way to do something brings one to realize that its not really about one truth for truth is subjective depending on the beholder. Granted we all feel inclined to choose a path and believe in its results however those results limited by a restricted discipline wether that be dogmatic or unaccepted advanced science could be a drop in the bucket compared to things which are far beyond measurement with such tools.
Science has done studies where in they divided a single particle and they seperated its other half, hundreds to hundreds of thousands of miles from itself and whatever they subjected one half to the other registered it instantly reguardless the distance. Which proves even though we may feel seperate from that which created everything we are not and no matter the form or distance its all eternal and exploringly evolutional. Lol is that even a word? Well at any rate thats my take on it
Cyto Kine
This is a gross misunderstanding of quantum physics (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by not calling it a misrepresentation). In the experiments you refer to, scientists have generated two dependent or "entangled" particles, separated them and then looked at one and, shockingly, the other is complementary. Anything they do with one oft he particles after this, however, is not registered by the other.
Let me give a more practical example. Say I took a doll, cut it in half at the waist and mailed one half to you and one to a colleague on the other side of the world. When you opened your package, not only would you know what you received, you would instantaneously (faster then the speed of light) know what was in the other package on the other side of the world. All very interesting, but manipulating your half of the doll will do nothing to the other half.
If your understanding was correct we could use the phenomenon to build a faster-than-light communication system that we could install in our intrastellar exploration vehicles (which would be just one of a vast array of cool things we could do). We don't because we can't. We can't because it just doesn't work like that.
I'm curious. You felt that your understanding "proves even though we may feel seperate from that which created everything we are not and no matter the form or distance its all eternal and exploringly evolutional (sic)." Now that you know that you misunderstood the science, does this then disprove that statement for you?
Ethan Rigby
If we apply this to our existence, we are simply dependent on our cause, our parents, and they were caused by their parents and so on. to help us in our understanding, lets simplify things by supposing that only one thing exists right now, A1, which was brought into existence by, A2, which died shortly after A1 came into existence. Suppose that A2 was created by A3, and A3 by A4, and so on. We will call this a causal series. At this point nothing seems wrong with there existing a causal series that could go back infinitely, not being dependent on any one uncaused cause, but only on its predecessor.
A Cosmological argument, such as stated by Aristotle would say:
1.Every member of the collection of dependent beings has a cause or explanation.
thus,
2. The collection of dependent beings has a cause or explanation.
The argument fails to realize that for there to be an explanation of a collection of things is nothing more than for there to be an explanation of each of the things making up the collection. Since in the infinite collection of dependent beings, each being in the collection has an explanation- by having been caused by a preceding member of the collection- the explanation of the collection, so the criticism goes, has already been given. As David Hume said, 'Did i show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.' It is certainly a mistake to think that a collection of stamps is itself a stamp, so it is a mistake to think that the collection of dependent beings, is itself a dependent being
Tim blackburn 30+
Mind S 30+
"Trial" this is what "holy" books dictate and convey; it is a way to terrorize people. Religious people are more terrorized than being convinced. Like other believers you worry about the "eternal fire" and so you chose not to be "on the wrong side"; an example of Pascal Wager. When fear dominates, reason and logic retire. This is why I consider non-theists as courageous and brave people who rely on reason and logic to find knowledge instead of submitting to psychological fear created by Bronze age texts.
Sunny Qureshi
By the way ever consider why these sacred texts / holy books, dictate & convey the same message of Armageddon , hell etc??. I think it was a way to discipline the people of that era who were indulged in chaos, immorality, obscenity etc. At the same time it is important to note here that things like, morality, ethical behavior, norms of the society all were a result of information provided in these religious books hundreds of years back. And what science proved today was somehow magically present then without all the new age gizmo stuff? These are the things that force us to think about religion/spirituality
People during the deadly tornado at kentucky, began praying, Why was praying the first thing that came to her mind? link attached below is quite evident of a spiritual connection that each one of us has during fear, we connect with god:
http://youtu.be/2Po7Xyn-Amg
Comment deleted
Obey No1kinobe 50+
perhaps there is a natural cause beyond most of our capacities to comprehend
perhaps there is a circle or sphere of causes that has no beginning or end.
Franciz Desouza
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Maybe not. Which you seem reluctant to acknowledge.
And if there are gods they are probably not anything like described in any religion
Probably beyond our comprehension or imagination.
Frans Kellner 100+
All that has a begin must end. Anything only can begin within something existing.
In fact nothing begins for all things are a momentary transit by which the participating forces are composed untill they disintegrate into other things. All these forms are temporary the only thing not temporary is existence itself and the energy by which it is expressed.
Franciz Desouza
The Cosmological argument is another simple argument. We know that everything that exists has a cause related to its existence. We know that the universe exists. Because it is exists it must have an uncaused cause. The uncreated cause is God.
Both of these arguments are dependant upon the universe having a beginning. If the universe is infinite, then a primary mover -- a creator -- has no place. However modern cosmology has determined the universe does have a beginning. The laws of thermodynamics have determined this. According to the second law of thermodynamics, we are running out of working energy. It’s obvious that things wear down. If the universe were infinite then we would have run out by now.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Example, the cosmo-illogical argument, do we really know that everything that exists has a cause to its existence? Is that kind of existence the same as the universe would have started to exist? In other words, there is an obvious fallacy of equivocation right at the beginning of your argument, yet, you are oblivious to it. Do you notice it now? There are more fallacies in it, but one so important at the beginning, and you really don't see it? If you can't see such fallacies how can we trust your philosophical anything?
Motion? That one strikes as ridiculous. Motion, gravitation, expansion of the universe, I see no need for gods anywhere. That you can ask "then why is there gravity?" is but the same thing I can do "then why would there be a god?" So, I stop in nature, whether I know if I have reached its foundations or not does not matter, I still stop at nature. You go into fantasyland for no justifiable reason. Nature, at least we know it is there.
Cesar Mugnatto
The religious among us are famous for quoting the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" but therein lies the rub. If you ask one of them what is the First Law of Thermodynamics, they are usually dumbstruck. For that matter, they don't know how many Laws of Thermodynamics there are. And furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems and I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that the Universe is a closed system. Now, I am not a physicist, but then, I'm not trying to claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves the existence of God. I think that for those who do, it's incumbent on them to have an understanding of those Laws before bandying them about wrecklessly. OK - I caught you googling about the Laws of Thermodynamics, didn't I ? ;)
Sunny Qureshi
Ken brown 30+
Any cosmology can use it,it's there so you put it in,predictions of it's degree variance go back to 1896 when Guilluame predicted it to be 6.1* and he was for a non-expanding universe.We still haven't found dark matter,they use words like "Candidate" to slide in a possible for it's existence,30 years on and still nothing.
We should have several cosmologies all at the same time not just one,if you're a bang proponent then fine,if you're a steady state proponent then double fine,if your Religious then ok.
Like hoyle said it takes only one observation,just one to change it all.
Here's one,we have no evidence to the contrary that states the universe will not dissipate
This pix is an artists rendition of the universe
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/universethecosmologyque.jpg/
Linda Taylor 50+
Actually what happens in theoretical science is that a theory is created based on observations. That theory if it can be collaborated by other scientist, holds true until disproven. Because it is a theory and explains phenomena and can be explained to later generations. Some theories come in to and out of favor based on new information. But that is why sometimes science is advanced by a new generation working on an old observation.
So you are correct. Sometimes there are many theories to explain various phenomena. That is why it makes no sense to assign belief to any of them. Of course, some can leave the theoretical plane and move into scientific truth through hypothesis testing. That is why so many people are trying to prove theories. Its what scientists do.
Now observation is based on perception and we all know that can be faulty. That is why it needs to be corroborated. And the math, or logic can be substantiated. But this sometimes degrades into the whole reality debate going on in another thread.
Ken brown 30+
Yes you're right,we need more young blood without the fear of the old boy network to challenge it,i for one fear a theorum middle ages that could set us back decades,preposterous as that sounds the feeling is always at the back of my mind.
I wonder has anyone asked a blind person their thoughts on reality?
Linda Taylor 50+
Franciz Desouza
Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?
Franciz Desouza
Franciz Desouza
Gabo Moreno 100+
"The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
Also note that he says "no matter how counterintuitive and mystifying to the **uninitiated**" He is saying that an ignorant opinion on this does not matter. I add that if you are to argue against a scientific explanation you have to do so such well informed, not by misquoting, not by taking phrases and words out of context to make the wrong point. Not by misquoting in the hopes that everybody will believe that whatever some well-known biologist might have said is what every biologist/scientist is thinking.
You already gave us a twisted quote before (just look around here). Did you learn anything from our discovery of what the real quote was about? Apparently not. You continued using the very same creationist propaganda sources.
Kevin Brian Carroll
I'm referring to all the hub hub surrounding Quantum Mechanics and how many theoretical physicists are running off cliffs clutching to their anomalous research indications. Some are demanding that time doesn't exist and that reality is imposed by the perceiving agent. Crazy stuff. Now the "God Particle" is getting ready to disappoint its most fervent devotees. The double-slit experiment has morphed into wild speculation involving lettered researchers declaring that you can go back in time and unravel causal precedence. All the fault of our technology presenting us with indications that debunk our traditional interpretations of the basics of physical reality (reality anchors), and our thought leaders refusing to deal with the possibility that humanity might've gotten the initial interpretations of those staples wrong.
Take matter, for instance. Is it indivisible at any specific level of reduction? And if it is, then what causes it to emerge as existent in the first place? If you haven't got that answer, then you may as well declare God as the author. Truth is that matter is not indivisible at any level of reduction. In fact, matter isn't solid or physically concrete, and not in any sense of what those terms suggest. So, what is it? Its appearance of solidity is simple flawed human perception of the impact of Survival (the one existential imperative) requiring the primordial expression "Identity" to be established and defended by what has emerged as dynamic and initiative. The orbit, the linear trajectory, the change from this to that, and all occurring in sync with the same matrix of trajectories happening at all levels within each human being. We see ourselves as solid, so we see particles as solid too. Smaller but similar.
Ken brown 30+
Jacob Miller 10+
Franciz Desouza
Ken brown 30+
2nd state. The universe
3rd state. The Earth organic universe
4th state. The Human Conscious universe
5th state. Something i can't imagine so i'm stuck in the 4th state albeit the begining of the 4th state and looking back at the 1st state wondering if there was a blackness or does it come down the lines of the Plasmic universe? I lean towards God,i can't get the "For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction" out of my head,neither do i subscribe to the "Push pull Universe" which would conflict with the first state.Plasma theorists atleast acknowledge they have no idea what caused the second state but have a firm understanding of it,has there ever been a plama theorist speak at Ted? My generation and the younger generations all have a firm and incorruptable belief in the bang,like it's sponsored.Circles within circles.
Linda Taylor 50+
Ken brown 30+
My modern view of the universe is it's a mass of boiling bubbles,simple i know but i'm a firm believer in seed galaxies and that we need to really look at hubbles law and rethink it.
Franciz Desouza
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
If somehow a scroll/message feel from the sky that did have the complete science/details of the beginning, would we really understand it to the full extent using our interpretations of math and physics?
"You learn far more looking at death, than you do at birth"
Franciz Desouza
Sunny Qureshi
João Pinto
To me it's a very trouble question. I mean, let's face the Big Bang Theory. Where did it come the heat and the material that originated the explosion. We know that material and energy doesn't disappears, it transforms, renovates (Law of Conservation of Matter and the Law of Conservation of Energy).
If we face the The Circular cycle it stills doesn't answer our question. The Universe didn't started with matter and energy already created.
I can't even answer my self and I doubt that anyone can. It's very hard to even to talk about it and explain how we think about that.
I now leave another question;
Having such a hard question, do we need do know the answer to this problem like many others questions, instead fixing and working for other problems that are real and possible to solve in our own world?
Sunny Qureshi
João Pinto
And the "trial" in this world you mentioned, that´s quite a problem, I ask myself the same thing.
Sunny Qureshi
Linda Taylor 50+
And you know this how? What in the experience of your life has led you to believe this? I just want to know how you understand this.
João Pinto
Ex.: It was A that created the universe, and it was B that created A, and it was C that created B, etc, etc.
Every cause has is own cause. How is it possible that the first cause has been originated with no cause?
Linda Taylor 50+
Whenever you have a cause, you always have an antecedent cause.
So for instance, the big bang theory. If all matter was glumped together in some gigantic mass that blew apart and became the universe, how did matter get that way? Maybe matter blows apart and re-aggregates in some big bang cycle. Maybe matter just keeps flying into infinity until it runs into some more matter from some other big bang to aggregate once again. Even in the big bang theory, there would have to be an antecedent cause.
As I said in a previous post for those that believe that God is first cause. As if by magic, it must be God.
Both explanations (God and big bang) are very similar to a child's response when they do not completely understand yet. Both are part fantasy.
Ken brown 30+
Yes it is a faith position because it gives a singular cause where is all ancient peoples creation stories are built around multiple deities involved,including my own races stories.
One cause and only one.
Linda Taylor 50+
Unless, of course, you assign belief to those books and then we are back to the fantasy part.
From a previous post of mine:
Jan 14 2012:
Creation stories have been around since the dawn of man. Because no one was around when the world was created, we can reasonably be sure no one really knows how it all started. Because no one really knows how it all started, humans developed creation stories. These creation stories became a way to explain to outsiders what the values, morals and beliefs were of the people that created the stories. When two groups of people came together in the past, the exchange of creation stories was part of the diplomatic exchange as different peoples got to know one another.
Sunny Qureshi
By the way how can you say/speculate or know the "creation of stories by people" with regards to religious books? Whats faith then? or even Blind faith for that instance?
Linda Taylor 50+
For instance, the idea of circular nature. That is a very ancient understanding of the world and frankly, for me, the only one that makes sense. But for some people, it makes sense that God created the earth in seven days and they believe it.
I guess faith gives us structure to chaos, the Illusion of control.
I would not say that I believe in circular nature. It is just a theory and one that makes sense. I am always looking for other theories and enjoy the exploration. Understand also that in the past, creation stories were just stories. Nobody actually believed in any of them. That is a recent phenomena.
Franciz Desouza
God does not leave us with just claims of His divine handiwork in the Bible, but also supports it with compelling evidence. The design of the Bible itself is a miracle. Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing. No human beings could have planned such an intricate combination of books over a 1,500-year time span. Bible manuscripts (remember, there were no printing presses until 1455) have survived despite weather, persecution and time.
Linda Taylor 50+
Oh I agree completely the book is incredibly old. And people were able to copy very accurately because they took their work seriously. A scribe was a pretty important guy to be and had a work ethic.
And the whole no human can plan a 66 chapter book thing. Actually there were entire counsels that planned the book. The council at Jerusalem. The council at Nicea. Couple more that I forgot. They went through it with a fine tooth comb. 'This we keep, this we get rid of.' In fact, I think there may be some records somewhere documenting the process. I don't follow that closely.
But Egyptian hieroglyphics were too. So were Mayan. And some of them claim to be from some god too. And they were pretty consistent. I am sorry but your compelling evidence is not so compelling.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
No one knows for sure either way, however I find the Prime Mover less satisfying for me than a natural universe that started with no help. Everything we have figured out doesn't need help of other entities. Lightening, the sun the moon, growing crops, sickness. Expect it is the same for this most difficult challenge to figure out.
After all it was about 13 billion years ago.
I use to wonder : 0 = -1 +1
Maybe there is a negative universe to offset this positive one with a net result of zero.
My sketchy understanding of quantum theory etc is that is contains some explanation for how something might come from nothing, multiple universes moving forward in different time lines. It really does baffle my super primate mind.
Once every thing got started we seem to do better with natural explanations. I wonder if we will figure it out in another 100,000 years. I wonder if other life forms with say a million year head start on us have a better idea.
If there is a prime mover it really seems to have no practical impact on our lives, except when different cultures and societies try to define it human terms and we end up with all the false claims of religions.
Sunny Qureshi
Bastian Brandt
Linda Taylor 50+
Finally.
Sunny Qureshi
Sunny Qureshi
Adriaan Braam 20+
BTW the Creation Story has nothing to do with the creation of this universe or world. It is a parable.
The first thing we should admit is that this physical world is the result of a spiritual world. In short, every single thing we do on our level is caused by a spiritual endeavour or love in the mind. Even the slightest move of a finger, if something needs doing or communicated, we do it from our mind. And our mind is in that other, non physical world.
We make the same 'connection' between our mind and our personal, material surroundings. Are we in the drawing we make? No, however, in a way, yes we are. I'll try to use the right words and ideas to express something I read but which is way beyond me.
God has 'distanced' His Love from Himself, far enough from the infinite, that, from Divine and spiritual, it became spiritual and heavenly. From heaven it 'continued' to become matter. As you know, matter is more a cloud of particles held together by a force than being 'solid.' Spiritual love results in physical attraction.
This booklet is what I read and, yes, it's all about creation.. please enjoy
http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/documents/Creation.pdf
Joshua Pirutinsky
James Turner 10+
Franciz Desouza
I just wouldn't come up with my own theory and then throw the "idea" of God away because one's theory doesn't require "faith". In the end it requires more faith to accept man's version of how the puzzle came to be. And if you do accept it, well then why did it happen? It can't just have happened because it happened. That's bad logic and a poor reason for giving life its intelligence.
If we are all a product of our environment, then what was the environment that allowed the big bang to come to be and who allowed it? You can't even think in that frame. This is what leads me to one conclusion: God exists because nothing can or has been explained before him.
It all boils down to a choice to accept you are from a greater source, or just the result of randomness. My question to all is what gives an atom energy? There is no reason for it to have energy unless there is a plan to use it. Things just don't do or exist after something made it for the sake of itself.
I just can't simply accept randomness when everything in life functions so well when planned. Why does man want to create and have organization? It reflects God. We are a mirror of him. Look at the world, minus sin see what man has created with his mind. You don't have to look into space for answers when you're living proof. Think about it.
Cesar Mugnatto
Only something greater can create something less[er]? How about the slow accumulation of minerals carried by water droplets that create stalagmites and stalactites, or the formation of quartz crystals, or the Sahara winds that move and shape the dunes? There are just the most obvious, but any cursory reading of Dawkins's books would convince you that simplicity can lead to complexity.
It requires more faith to accept man's version of how the puzzle came to be? As opposed to believing that someone up there zapped us into existence? I may not be a physicist nor a biologist but the research these folks do is peer reviewed and junk "science" is tossed out. Religion by definition, cannot be peer reviewed.
"It can't just have happened because it happened". But isn't this the crux of the religious argument? God exists because some ancient scribblings say he exists and you are not supposed to question that. And nobody created God because God just happened.
Why does someone have to "allow" the Big Bang to occur? Why must there be a reason for an atom to have energy?
"accept you are from a greater source, or just the result of randomness" - I'll take two lumps of randomness, please. What the religious always, always, always confuse with randomness is that species development is like hitting on a lottery number, rather than a step by step approach. Dawkins illustrates this beautifully using software that mimics monkeys typing on typewriters.
Your last point, you have got it completely backwards. As it says on the cover of the Jethro Tull album "Aqualung" - "And Man created God in his own image"
Franciz Desouza
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
References:
Robert Jastrow; "Message from Professor Robert Jastrow"; LeaderU.com; 2002.
Steven Weinberg; The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe; (Basic Books,1988); p 5.
Linda Taylor 50+
Franciz Desouza
Linda Taylor 50+
Sunny Qureshi
Ref: 1992 discovery of the planet orbiting another star other than the sun as given in hawkings book.
Franciz Desouza
NASA definition of gravity is: "Gravity is a force of attraction that exists between any two masses, any two bodies, any two particles," With Hawkin's assertion as per the Related TED-talk link given above: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Nothing has zero mass and I would suspect has no gravity"
This is the most pointless argument imaginable. God or no God,..it's a question that will be answered for everyone of us when we take our last breath. I'll still put my faith in God over Stephen Hawking any day.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Why should it be chaos if not god(s)? Aren't there other options at all?
Franciz,
Maybe you should read Hawking's book instead of trying to take it from such a philosophical, while uninformed, point of view. Hawking is talking about more advanced physics than "the attraction of two bodies ..."
While I don't completely buy into it, because I am also ignorant of physics, probably, or perhaps because despite my ignorance I note (I read the book) some noise indicative of brand new fields of study in those regards, thus no well established principles yet, I don't think it is right to just shrug and say "This is the most pointless argument imaginable ..." That's worse than ignorance. It is pretending understanding and knowledge while holding none.
Sunny Qureshi
@Franciz,Its quite amusing how so many people can so easily prove Hawking, and so many more of the world's most brilliant minds wrong, with their "vast and total comprehension".It's not a religious debate. Its' an account of how the universe came to be and the rules that govern it. Is it so impossible to think that an omnipotent and omnipresent God put forth the rules that govern the natural world?
Gabo Moreno 100+
That's exactly the point, what do you mean by unstructured and structured, how do you know that without god(s) the universe should come by itself from complete non-structure to order, or chaos versus god(s). Seems like a false dichotomy because I see no reason why the properties of the universe, or an upper nature, would be such that universes could appear, not from chaos, but perhaps from absolute nothingness, which is not a chaos, or from a different structure into a universe structure. What came across from your chaos versus god(s) comment was a classic false dichotomy that you should expect things to come from utter disorder/randomness, whatever creationists version of that might be, into being, thus impossible, thus god(s).
I am not claiming to know how or what, or from what. I am saying that putting chaos against god(s) is a false dichotomy because it discounts that "structure" can be a natural consequence of the way this nature we live in works. The false dichotomy being designed to allow for no options but god(s).
I hope that was clear.
Best!
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Creationists often assume the creator sits outside time and is eternal. They believe in something eternal that is not matter or energy but can create matter and energy so the law of conservation of matter is void for the start of the universe. Apparently the laws of physics don't apply in this convenient spiritual realm.
Suggest it is at least as logical to assume that there was some initial natural state before the big bang that was conducive to the big bang. Maybe there was not "nothing". But it wasn't matter or energy as we know it. Maybe there is a third form of matter and energy infinitely dense.
Maybe the starting point of the big bang wasn't nothing exactly - it just is not matter or energy in a form we now know it.
I suggest most the laws of physics apply to the universe post big bang. Maybe gravity is inherent to matter so can we say it existed before matter did as we know it now?
We don't know if multiple universes have banged into existence all over the place or in the past if that has meaning.
A first mover or creator is a valid option. In it's broadest form it is impossible to disprove. But so is the option of the universe starting off without a conscious entity involved.
Perhaps you also take it to the next level and believe in a particular interventionist god as revealed by scriptures or prophets etc. Perhaps you believe in a particular interpretation associated with this god/religious belief in opposition to the thousands and millions of alternative beliefs humans have had.
Creator - maybe
Interventionist god - unlikely
Specific god/dogma/interpretation/religion sect - highly unlikely - a product of where and when you were born and what you have been exposed to
Linda Taylor 50+
In a cause-effect paradigm, there is ALWAYS an apriori cause. At least until you hit the final. And then by magic, you say "it must be God."
That wonderful catch phrase for " Stuff Humans Can't Explain."
@ Sunny No, I do not ascribe to ex nihilo. (How old do you think I am dude;) And were you talking about my 20 year old reference or someone else's?
Sunny Qureshi
Linda Taylor 50+
Sunny Qureshi
Franciz Desouza
" the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, is remarkable, and is compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed" : This means that he still has doubt that something is present that is controlling it or has caused it, why is this always the case???
2.nd Excerpt From his book the grand design:
"Because there is a LAW such as gravity, there is something rather than nothing"
If there is a law of gravity, or other laws of physics, how did they come to exist???
I still find it interesting that some people can find "MASS TRANSFORMATION" a solid argument against a creator, except they still have no first cause theory??
p.s: I can understand its a debate, but i never called anyone ignorant here, and i would like the other person to treat me in the same way :)
Gabo Moreno 100+
So you commit the same mistakes yet again, worse now because you call Hawking ignorant and fallacious without knowing, nor understanding, what he was talking about. You cited gravity as "defined" by NASA, but did you read Hawking's explanations at all? It does not seem like you did, thus you criticize from a position of ignorance. Not just that, but an arrogant position of ignorance, since you did not bother to check before calling Hawking on fault logic.
Whatever laws, why do they have to have a source that is not a natural source, why can't they be ultimate properties of nature? Just because you say so?
I don't find mass transformation a solid argument. But even if I found that convincing, I do not think that such is an argument against the existence of god(s). It all depends on what kind(s) of god(s) are imagined. But causality is about transformations of mass and energy, also an abstraction about how and why these transformations happen. The cosmological fallacy starts with equivocations about cause/effect and about existence. But, since you seem to be versed in logic, maybe you can pinpoint the problems yourself.
P.S. Did a little search for that quote and guess how it goes?:
"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions-the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."
So, where did you take that misquote from? Maybe I should add "misinformed" to the way you form your opinions?
Sunny Qureshi
So, where did you take that misquote from? Maybe I should add "misinformed" to the way you form your opinions?
Gabo Moreno 100+
Notice too that I don't just call you or your arguments ignorant or misinformed, I tell you exactly why I perceive ignorance and misinformation. So, it is not an insult, but a proper description.
I also have to ask. Given that the quote you wrote is twisted to mean something different to what Hawking said, do you think that your source is trustable? How many other lies could that source of yours contain?
Unless you produced the misquoting yourself. But I doubt it.
Rhona Pavis 50+
Franciz Desouza
Sunny Qureshi
The world around us is beyond our control so any energy put towards controlling is not the best use of you. Imagine instead that at all times you are fully supported by the Universe. The serenity prayer says it best:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.--Reinhold Niebuhr
Kevin Brian Carroll
The only existential imperative is survival, and it is expressed in a range of manners (relatively masculine and feminine). Activity pursues survival within the event trajectory, with each trajectory establishing a permanent informational continuum (fact clusters accurately placed within an informational representation of the trajectory itself) as a default emergence of permanent physical existence. That constantly emerging information (many, many event trajectories existing concurrently and consecutively, as you can imagine) sets and refines contextual precedence within each contextual environment and this manages progressive development in a default manner (it's called natural law by scientists). This default symbiosis between information and activity is the basis of all that increases, changes, and develops. It gets a lot more complicated than this, but there's no real way to detail it fully within a thread post.
Linda Taylor 50+
Kevin Brian Carroll
Linda Taylor 50+
It's that whole humancentric philosophical part that I don't buy. Like life is more important than non-life. Hierarchical baloney. Life would not exist if it was not for the non-life. We tend to forget that as humans.
That humancentric stuff is the basis for all kinds of non-life abuse. Causes stuff like global warming, ecological damage, inappropriate utilization of resources....
Kevin Brian Carroll
3 days ago: Ah but your major underlying premise is that the only things that exist are humans (well, perhaps sexual lifeforms-I guess asexual lifeforms are outta luck) and the only imperative is survival.]
When I used the gender qualifiers, I wasn't referring to human beings or even life forms of any kind. Qualifiers are primordial - Truth is a qualifier, if that helps any.
I did mention human perception, but only in reference to how primordial drivers and qualifiers can become very vague if being examined by an epitome existential expression (like the human being). At that level, so much has been structured and affected that what ends up being most perceptible is subjective (relative) aspects that are the result of layers of survival driven interpretations. Hell, at that level nothing is objectively noted. Perception itself is incapable of objectivity.
Rhona Pavis 50+
Linda Taylor 50+
Gender = qualifiers = primordial : therefore : Gender = primordial
So why am I wrong that sexual beings are primordial and other stuff is not? How is a non-lifeform a gender?
Truth = qualifiers = primordial : therefore : truth = primordial
How much primordial stuff can you have in a world view? I guess, it's your world view so as much as you want.
But I completely disagree that human beings are anywhere near an epitome existential expression. But it is your hierarchy. I also disagree that survival is THE imperative. I have seen different and can illustrate. The only qualifier is who or what's survival. When you have that broad a definition of survival, meaning is lost. It is no longer an imperative. I do agree that at the level of survival, perception is incapable of objectivity. If survival is between you and me, I win. If it is between me and my kids, the kids win.
David Hamilton 50+
I think those questions are much less important than the very simple... Is it good that things exist? Yes, as something that exists... I would like to suggest that it is wonderful. Some people feel the need to have a cause, to be able to believe that... and god represents this for them. I'm not sure about the cause, but I am certain that what little existence we have, should be appreciated.
Without perception there is no time...
1. So far, it seems to... Except at the quantum level... but, probably.
2. Personally, I like to think matter is reproducing behind our back, but thats a long and crazy theory.
3. Human beings will never know the first cause, but if there is one... it always was... I guess. And, it was good.
Franciz Desouza
Kevin Brian Carroll
In the end, it's the human translation of observation (perception) that tries to define physical reality for the humans that long to be able to depend on that translation. An initial misinterpretation of a fundamental reality anchor like the true nature of material existence (for instance) will skew all successive determinations, and even now, our advanced technologies have begun to indicate that some of our reality anchors may not be as reliable as we have traditionally declared them to be.
Sunny Qureshi
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Do you understand that your creator hypothesis doesn't answer the question it just adds complexity because you now have a creator entity that is even harder to explain. If you believe in a god(s) - god's existence is a mystery
Can you understand how non theists can just accept a non god/creator state before the big bang as a the same sort of mystery.
Theists: How did the universe start. god. How did god start. Mystery.
Non Theists: How did the universe start. Mystery.
We just cut out the unnecessary speculative unprovable middle bit i.e. god
Kevin Brian Carroll
From there, it got pretty complicated and the rest if history. I lay it all out in greater detail in my book TAKING DOWN THE CURTAIN.
Rhona Pavis 50+
Kevin Brian Carroll
Rhona Pavis 50+
Franciz Desouza
Kevin Brian Carroll
Linda Taylor 50+
First there was nothing.
This nothing was conceptualized. (By???)
The nothing became fact (by whom as communicated to whom??)
Therefore the fact of nothing is physical proof that there is nothing.
So what you are saying is that nothing does not exist outside of human perception. I disagree.