"God is self-existent"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2015, 06:26 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(04-03-2015 01:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 02:34 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  I'm sure someone already answered this, but it bears repeating until it gets through to them:
You cannot argue that someone (God) is self-existent while simultaneously arguing that something (the universe) cannot be. Either self-existence without "cause" is possible or it is not. The universe exists. There is no evidence that God does.
1. Of course you can argue that if God was created as a result of say, the Big Bang. But he pre-exists this universe.

Why not save a step and conclude that the universe pre-exists the the big bang, in some other form?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
09-03-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(08-03-2015 06:26 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(04-03-2015 01:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. Of course you can argue that if God was created as a result of say, the Big Bang. But he pre-exists this universe.

Why not save a step and conclude that the universe pre-exists the the big bang, in some other form?

Because of infinite regression. However, infinite regression does not apply to the Bible, wherein God says He was not created by another power.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(09-03-2015 12:57 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because of infinite regression. However, infinite regression does not apply to the Bible, wherein God says He was not created by another power.

How would he know?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(09-03-2015 12:57 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 06:26 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Why not save a step and conclude that the universe pre-exists the the big bang, in some other form?

Because of infinite regression. However, infinite regression does not apply to the Bible, wherein God says He was not created by another power.

Bible says. Laughat

Your logical fallacy for today is: special pleading

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
09-03-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(09-03-2015 12:57 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 06:26 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Why not save a step and conclude that the universe pre-exists the the big bang, in some other form?

Because of infinite regression. However, infinite regression does not apply to the Bible, wherein God says He was not created by another power.

No, that's just special pleading.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
09-03-2015, 06:13 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(09-03-2015 12:57 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-03-2015 06:26 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Why not save a step and conclude that the universe pre-exists the the big bang, in some other form?

Because of infinite regression. However, infinite regression does not apply to the Bible, wherein God says He was not created by another power.

Hrrm... so the universe couldn't have existed in another form? In the beginning was God, and god created the universe:
G -> G' + U
Where G is God in a state before the big bang, G' is God in a state after the the big bang, and U is the universe.

Are you saying this model cannot work because the universe could not exist in a prior form, such as the form "G"?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(09-03-2015 06:13 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(09-03-2015 12:57 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because of infinite regression. However, infinite regression does not apply to the Bible, wherein God says He was not created by another power.

Hrrm... so the universe couldn't have existed in another form? In the beginning was God, and god created the universe:
G -> G' + U
Where G is God in a state before the big bang, G' is God in a state after the the big bang, and U is the universe.

Are you saying this model cannot work because the universe could not exist in a prior form, such as the form "G"?

The universe could have existed in another form, sure. We still have a) infinite regression to account for and/or b) the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(10-03-2015 10:49 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-03-2015 06:13 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Hrrm... so the universe couldn't have existed in another form? In the beginning was God, and god created the universe:
G -> G' + U
Where G is God in a state before the big bang, G' is God in a state after the the big bang, and U is the universe.

Are you saying this model cannot work because the universe could not exist in a prior form, such as the form "G"?

The universe could have existed in another form, sure. We still have a) infinite regression to account for and/or b) the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

And the god explanation is the least likely and solves none of those issues.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
10-03-2015, 12:39 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(10-03-2015 10:57 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(10-03-2015 10:49 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The universe could have existed in another form, sure. We still have a) infinite regression to account for and/or b) the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

And the god explanation is the least likely and solves none of those issues.

The least likely to explain what? How matter was created ex nihilo, which is it exactly what the Law is saying...? I believe differently, and you are entitled to your opinion, but their are wondrous truths to be gleaned from the Bible here...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2015, 03:19 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(10-03-2015 10:49 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-03-2015 06:13 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Hrrm... so the universe couldn't have existed in another form? In the beginning was God, and god created the universe:
G -> G' + U
Where G is God in a state before the big bang, G' is God in a state after the the big bang, and U is the universe.

Are you saying this model cannot work because the universe could not exist in a prior form, such as the form "G"?

The universe could have existed in another form, sure. We still have a) infinite regression to account for and/or b) the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

First of all, infinite regression only is a problem if the universe is in fact temporally finite. An infinite, oscillatory universe does not have to worry about this since its an infinite chain of shifting states. There is no evidence this is NOT the case, there is no evidence it IS either. It's a speculation.

As for the conservation law somehow being relevant, that indicates what assumptions you are making. For starters, the conservation law applies to isolated systems, so right there you're making an assumption that the universe IS in fact an isolated system. Furthermore, your own answer to origins of the universe violates the conservation law; matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but CAN change form. Please explain how a creator-being "creating" matter and energy is consistent with the conservation law without utilizing special pleading. On the other hand, an oscillatory universe that eternally changes states would be both consistent with the conservation law and not be struggling with an infinite regression problem since it would in fact be infinite.

And hence we arrive at the ultimate stumbling block for the cosmological argument. The reason everything I've been discussing about the grander scope of the nature of the universe in the hypothetical is because the observable universe in its current state is all we know of. Whether there is anything beyond the observable universe, whether it has only existed in this current state, whether there are other universes out there, whether the laws of physics apply to any of these other hypothetical universes or the other states of an oscillatory universe; we don't have an answer to any of that. We can't, the current scope of our knowledge is too limited to make supportable conclusions on any of these inquiries. We can form hypotheses and speculations, but that's it so far.

The cosmological argument disregards all of this and makes unsupportable assumptions about the nature of the universe in order to construct a nice little playbox for its creatorbeing to magically spring forth from. It's also obviously a reverse-engineered syllogism, the conclusion is already pre-supposed. If one doesn't start with its presupposition it immediately becomes apparent that God is NOT the conclusion one comes to from following the premises. This is because instead of acting like any other hypothesis (albeit an outdated one) it insists that its conclusion is obligate. Except the conclusion invalidates the premises, so either one must throw out the pre-supposed conclusion and actually follow the line of logical reasoning demanded by a syllogism, or one sacrifices logic and resorts to special pleading, as you have.

Is it possible God is the answer? Sure, I don't think it's very likely but you could label it a speculative answer to this conundrum like any other, but one will not come to this conclusion through the premises provided by the cosmological argument, as your overreliance on "biblical evidence" is testament to.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: