Checkmate in 3 moves

[Nate13]

Its called The Universe./QUOTE]

Haha yes I know the first set of three really doesn’t say much. That’s the only reason I added my own argument afterwards. Just being able to say “something” always existed doesn’t really mean much, thus I made an attempt to get more specific about that “something”

[The law says that matter/energy cannot be created, not that it can’t create itself. The total energy of The Universe has existed for all points in time. Being “created” would require a point in time where it did not exist, and that just ain’t so.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

With that i see no point in continuing this discussion since you do not seem to be able to understand the concept of potentiality much less acknowledge that each thought you have had at one time did not exist; and thus by definition was only a potential thought.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

If you feel insulted by that, please speak to a forum administrator.

I think the point at issue is that potentiality, as such, only exists where there is conscious conception of things being other than what they are at any given moment; apart from any awareness that there will be a future, there is only actuality. An acorn, though it contains the means to produce an oak tree, is in itself still only an acorn until it begins to sprout. We now bump up against the anthropic principle, which from our perspective, looks backwards and sees forethought and planning at every stage of our development - even as far back as the first emergence of life - towards the supposed end goal of human existence. At every instance of change, there is only actuality - it’s only in looking backwards that we, as conscious beings, may perceive something like the potential for one set of conditions to become another set of conditions.

 

[CatSci]

But if the atheist were to argue that “that the universe has existed at every point in time,” then it could also be said that the universe had its beginning at the very first “point in time”;

No, it is saying the exact opposite of that: If there is no point in time in which the universe does not exist then it cannot “begin” as that implies a point of not existing, there’s no point before that first one to come from to be called a beginning.

that is to say, that the beginning of the universe also indicates the beginning of the first point in time and vice versa.

Since its an endpoint in/of both time and space, it cannot have any temporal causality as perceived from within spacetime, itelf.

Are you familiar with the analogy that shows that the quesion is asking ‘what’s north of the north pole?’?

since nothing without existence has neither the means nor the power in which to cause either itself or something else into existence, the only explanation for the universe then, or at least the best one, is that a non-contingent Being (God) made it

The explanation is that it is uncaused. There was never nothing. That the Universe just is.

 

[CatSci]

It really very simply comes down to do you believe we were designed or are a random fluke occurrence?

I don’t know and I don’t really think that matters for this. Instead of picking your side and then trying to make an argument that supports it, lets just look at what we can know and then let the conclusion follow from that.

In my opinion the amount of things you just have to “accept” if you are going to believe the Universe just has always been here is insurmountable. If it was as simple as “X amount of matter always existed” that would be one thing, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Just go read all the things that need to line up in order for the big bang theory to work out.

I’m fairly familiar with Big Bang Theory. Think of the number of things that have to line up in order for you to have the particular combination of cards to make the hand that you’ve been dealt in a card game. In hind site it could be seen as practically impossible, but you’ve gotta get something. Perhaps the Universe is just as inevitable.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think the point at issue is that potentiality, as such, only exists where there is conscious conception of things being other than what they are at any given moment; apart from any awareness that there will be a future, there is only actuality. An acorn, though it contains the means to produce an oak tree, is in itself still only an acorn until it begins to sprout. We now bump up against the anthropic principle, which from our perspective, looks backwards and sees forethought and planning at every stage of our development - even as far back as the first emergence of life - towards the supposed end goal of human existence. At every instance of change, there is only actuality - it’s only in looking backwards that we, as conscious beings, may perceive something like the potential for one set of conditions to become another set of conditions.

And where back to saying its all illusion to serve our self interests. An Irrational degree of skepticism posing as reason. There is either a change or there is not. There is either evolution or there is not. Things either begin or they don’t begin at all. It is evident to me and any human capable of even the most rudimentary degree of experience, that things which were not actual at some point has now become actual. An acorn cannot be both an acorn and a tree at the same time. The universe is evidently a chain potential-contingent-things. I have no rational reason to ignore my senses any more than i have for thinking that existence is an illusion simply because i experience it through consciousness.

You choose.

Good luck.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If there is no point in time in which the universe does not exist then it cannot “begin” as that implies a point of not existing, there’s no point before that first one to come from to be called a beginning.

There is a point where change begins, insofar as the fact that there is no preceding events of changing things. In other-words where there is a finite amount of change it can be rationally inferred that it has a beginning. Its irrelevant that there is not a time when time has not existed, since all that really means is that there was nothing physical before the point of change.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
2. Therefore out of non-change comes non-change.

3 It therefore follows that a thing cannot begin to change by itself.

Its not difficult to understand what that means.

1. The sufficient cause of change is necessarily timeless and is therefore not a part of the physical universe.

 

[Nimeniton]

With that i see no point in continuing this discussion since you do not seem to be able to understand the concept of potentiality much less acknowledge that each thought you have had at one time did not exist; and thus by definition was only a potential thought.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

If you feel insulted by that, please speak to a forum administrator.

I am somewhat more thick skinned than to feel insulted by that and also I am happy to respect your offer to agree to disagree. It is not a big issue for me. Although my original threat still holds. I will simply provide the administrator with a list of your quotes to a variety of members as examples of rudeness. After all I merely have to convince the administrator that you are consistently impolite - I will leave it to you to defend each and every case with the administrator.

An academic friend of mine spoke of two tendencies in response to our beliefs being challenged. 1. Is for one to assume that the mistake is one’s own, that one has not understood. 2, The second is to assume that the other person has made a mistake and is wrong. He saw these as extremes and felt the correct attitude was to consider both possibilities. This struck me as sensible. My observation of you to date is that you have a strong tendency to fall into the extreme of category 2. I also think that you try to “mind read”. Examples are the suggestion that people have not understood you, are deliberately not wanting to understand or are being childish and all this quite early on in the debate. Remember you can not see the body language of the person and you know very little about their background and why they would respond to you as they do. It takes a while to get the “feel” of a person. Two people can use exactly the same words for very different reasons.

I assume and would be surprised if others did not also assume that usually people come into a debate believing they are right and the other is wrong and that this belief is mutual. It seems a very odd thing to feel compelled to tell someone that they are wrong or do not understand when this is implicitly understood. You can assume we know that you believe that because that is the standard position in any debate. What is more helpful is to identify the cause of the misunderstanding. This , of course , requires a lot of patience. You are an intelligent person and this means that you have a lot to give - but you need to work on your communication skills for people to fully benefit and be more receptive…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I will simply provide the administrator with a list of your quotes to a variety of members as examples of rudeness. After all I merely have to convince the administrator that you are consistently impolite - I will leave it to you to defend each and every case with the administrator.

I really don’t care. Do what is right.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I am somewhat more thick skinned than to feel insulted by that and also I am happy to respect your offer to agree to disagree. It is not a big issue for me. Although my original threat still holds. I will simply provide the administrator with a list of your quotes to a variety of members as examples of rudeness. After all I merely have to convince the administrator that you are consistently impolite - I will leave it to you to defend each and every case with the administrator.

An academic friend of mine spoke of two tendencies in response to our beliefs being challenged. 1. Is for one to assume that the mistake is one’s own, that one has not understood. 2, The second is to assume that the other person has made a mistake and is wrong. He saw these as extremes and felt the correct attitude was to consider both possibilities. This struck me as sensible. My observation of you to date is that you have a strong tendency to fall into the extreme of category 2. I also think that you try to “mind read”. Examples are the suggestion that people have not understood you, are deliberately not wanting to understand or are being childish and all this quite early on in the debate. Remember you can not see the body language of the person and you know very little about their background and why they would respond to you as they do. It takes a while to get the “feel” of a person. Two people can use exactly the same words for very different reasons.

If i make an inference about somebodies behavior, it is because i wasn’t born yesterday and i have heard and seen it all before. And being that i have much experience and understanding of human nature, i am able to know when somebody is not being honest and is being for lack a of a better word a “troll”. All this threat about me saying this or that is just expressive of the fact that you cannot challenge my argument reasonably, and therefore you are now looking for some other way to silence me.

Do as you please. My argument still stands as irrefutable evidence of a first cause, regardless of whether i continue to be a member of this forum or not.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I am somewhat more thick skinned than to feel insulted by that and also I am happy to respect your offer to agree to disagree. It is not a big issue for me. Although my original threat still holds. I will simply provide the administrator with a list of your quotes to a variety of members as examples of rudeness. After all I merely have to convince the administrator that you are consistently impolite - I will leave it to you to defend each and every case with the administrator.

An academic friend of mine spoke of two tendencies in response to our beliefs being challenged. 1. Is for one to assume that the mistake is one’s own, that one has not understood. 2, The second is to assume that the other person has made a mistake and is wrong. He saw these as extremes and felt the correct attitude was to consider both possibilities. This struck me as sensible. My observation of you to date is that you have a strong tendency to fall into the extreme of category 2. I also think that you try to “mind read”. Examples are the suggestion that people have not understood you, are deliberately not wanting to understand or are being childish and all this quite early on in the debate. Remember you can not see the body language of the person and you know very little about their background and why they would respond to you as they do. It takes a while to get the “feel” of a person. Two people can use exactly the same words for very different reasons.

I assume and would be surprised if others did not also assume that usually people come into a debate believing they are right and the other is wrong and that this belief is mutual. It seems a very odd thing to feel compelled to tell someone that they are wrong or do not understand when this is implicitly understood. You can assume we know that you believe that because that is the standard position in any debate. What is more helpful is to identify the cause of the misunderstanding. This , of course , requires a lot of patience. You are an intelligent person and this means that you have a lot to give - but you need to work on your communication skills for people to fully benefit and be more receptive…

It is a well-known defense posture that when one can no longer support one’s position by argument, then drop the argument, and attack the person.

That is the strategy of MatterLessMind.

The speed with which he does so is evidenced by the speed with which his views fail to hold up under scrutiny.

He cannot be faulted for weak thinking, but for his inappropriate reaction to superior thinking.

Instead of going to Forum Administrators, though, we should pray for him.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Instead of going to Forum Administrators, though, we should pray for him.

If you think i have said something wrong you should go to forum administrators so that they can review the thread and give out the appropriate punishments.

But thanks for the prayers anyway.

 

[Nimeniton]

it’s only in looking backwards that we, as conscious beings, may perceive something like the potential for one set of conditions to become another set of conditions.

Agreed with what you said before and you have said it better than me, It is , of course, possible to speculate that some one has potential for the future but the actuality remains uncertain whereas with the above you can do it with certainty with hindsight.

 

[Nimeniton]

Instead of going to Forum Administrators, though, we should pray for him.

If I was a catholic, I would , of course agree but as an atheist my only other position once one to one discussion fails is to seek a referee. I don’t want a forum where people are being impolite to each other. For the most part, I enjoy this board and the Catholics are patient with my constant questioning.

 

[Sair]

My argument still stands as irrefutable evidence of a first cause, regardless of whether i continue to be a member of this forum or not.

I don’t think you’ll find many folks these days, religious believers or otherwise, that would dispute the existence of something that must have been the first cause of the universe as we know it. The dispute is really only as to the nature of that something.

 

[Nimeniton]

1. The sufficient cause of change is necessarily timeless and is therefore not a part of the physical universe.

The assumption is that change must have a cause. Maybe because change is seen as part of the universe. But if one accepts the concept of a first cause as a Being it can be shown that change can precede the creation and be timeless itself. Being implies something that changes and is not frozen

For example one change is a God who has not created changing to a God who has created. or a God who had not manifested in the flesh, Jesus, to one who has. As the change is within God prior to creation one cannot talk of change as a quality solely of creation but as a quality of God himself. As the qualities of God are changeless and change is one of those qualities, then change has always existed and is timeless and has no cause

 

[Nimeniton]

. My argument still stands as irrefutable evidence of a first cause,.

Irrefutable means impossible to deny or disprove. Whilst you obviously believe this, I cannot see how you can be certain about it. For unless you are omniscient there is always the possibility that you have over-looked some flaws. So it would be more accurate of you to say that you believe it be irrefutable as you have faith, though no reason, to assume, that no flaws will ever be found.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Its funny to me that the only way an atheist or philosopher can challenge the argument is by either saying that perhaps time is an illusion or by saying that perhaps a thing can come out of nothing by itself. In other words they have to ignore basic fundamental rational principles in-order to remain agnostic towards the existence of a first cause. Its like saying, maybe there could be a square-triangle, while holding a straight face.

What about if you assume Hoyle’s continuously expanding universe.

I know that this has been discarded by Science (if indeed it was ever taken seriously)

But just for the sake of an argument, let us assume it is so. A universe that has always existed, whose history is infinite, in which everything ahs come from something else and nothing needs to come from nothing.

Okay, I know now you can argue with thermodynamics, and that all would have decsended into entropy by now if the universe were infinitely old, but Hoyle thought of that too and suggested that individual bits of the universe need not be as old as the universe as a whole, because the universe is continuously expading. Being infinite in size, it can have been expanding throughout its infinite history without there being a contradiction there. And because it is expanding, the empty spaces in between things are getting bigger too and in those spaces new things are appearing, ie, new material, new stars, new galaxies.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Irrefutable means impossible to deny or disprove. Whilst you obviously believe this, I cannot see how you can be certain about it. For unless you are omniscient there is always the possibility that you have over-looked some flaws. So it would be more accurate of you to say that you believe it be irrefutable as you have faith, though no reason, to assume, that no flaws will ever be found.

metaphysical logic does not require me to be omniscient. It merely requires me to acknowledge rational distinctions. For example a square is not a triangle; thus i can infer with absolute certainty that a “square-trinagle” cannot exist in reality. Just like i can infer that “out of nothing comes nothing”. My knowledge of an intelligent cause is not faith based, its certain knowledge.

It’s not how much you know, its what you know and understand."

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What about if you assume Hoyle’s continuously expanding universe.

I know that this has been discarded by Science (if indeed it was ever taken seriously)

But just for the sake of an argument, let us assume it is so. A universe that has always existed, whose history is infinite, in which everything ahs come from something else and nothing needs to come from nothing.

Firstly, it does not matter if their is an infinite or not. There cannot be infinite potentiality without an absolute reality as its sufficient cause. In an infinite universe, no point in the evolutionary chain is the sufficient cause of change (the actualization of potential), since every distinct point is merely a medium to the existence of change. Therefore all the points in the chain are the effects or the outcome of potential possibility rather than being the root cause of the potentiality of change, and thus nothing in the chain accounts for the reality of change or potential. The universe, infinite or not, is an effect, not a cause.

Secondly; It is logically impossible to add up to an infinite quantity, because there is no greatest number which transcends a finite quantity. You can always add one more. Therefore its impossible in principle to have an actually infinite quantity. The statement is self contradictory because its being infinite is due to having an infinite addition of distinct points and therefore a transcendence of all logically possible ontological quantities.

The Hoyle’s universe would require there to be actually infinite quantity. Therefore Hoyle’s universe is an ontological impossibility.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
2. Potentiality is dependent on actuality in-order to become a real being, and therefore potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality, because that would be an example of actuality coming out of nothing.
3. Therefore there has to be an absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states (irrespective of their number) so that its being is not preceded by any potentiality; and thus not violating the first and second premise.

1. What is something and when is it absent?
2. Spinoza, among others, would claim that the actuality is dependent on the potentiality because it is nature that holds that absolute and infinite and this has a chance to be proven mathematically; starting with Cantor attempt; contrary to the current belief that Paul Cohen and Kurt Godel are right.
3. Time is epiphenomenonal to motion and referencing an immortal, eternal or everlasting present has no equivalence or analogy in reality outside of analytic language (and following the Chomsky’s linguistic insight) in the ability of man to speak with embedded recursion in his language. Otherwise, there is not a synthetic account.