Does creation need a creator, as per reason?

[joe370]

Can it be demonstrated that an infinite regression is not possible?

No. However, I think reason alone would suggest that everything has a beginning. To simply say that the material universe or universes have no beginning is not something my brain can grasp.

 

[joe370]

Bear with me as this conversation is way above my intelligence level, but why should everything in the universe have a beginning and an end except the universe itself. An infinite intelligence I can kind of understand, but matter in an infinite form is too hard for me to grasp.

 

[joe370]

I take it this is the philosophical nothing and not the quantum vacuum nothing.

Be it philosophical nothing or quantum vacuum nothing, isn’t still nothing? Nothing is not something; it’s nothing. How can the material universe (something) stem from nothing?

 

[joe370]

But he bases his argument on the first boxcar, saying:

However, if the chain of boxcars extends infinitely in both directions, there ISN’T a first boxcar. His whole argument presupposes the existence of something that doesn’t exist.

From where did these material universes with no beginning, extending in both directions, come from is the question that I ponder. Doesn’t it take faith to believe that it has no beginning or can it be proven?

 

[joe370]

I would ask how they could have already existed but I’m sure I missed something. How do you people that debate these thing keep from going insane.:whacky:

I have been :banghead: trying to grasp the idea.

 

[joe370]

The analogy still fails to prove anything because the argument presupposes the existence of a first point, which is contrary to the parameters of the scenario.

Can it be demonstrated that a first point of origin is unnecessary, regarding the universe or universes?

Where did our intellect come from, was another question I could not answer as a former agnostic?

 

[Bakmoon]

No. However, I think reason alone would suggest that everything has a beginning. To simply say that the material universe or universes have no beginning is not something my brain can grasp.

Intuition also suggests that time is absolute, and yet special relativity denies this, giving examples of where simultaneity is relative. (That is to say, whether or not events A and B occur A then B, B then A, or at the same time can depend on the observer’s frame of reference in certain instances.) When it comes down to the most fundamental parts of physics, there are many things that go directly against our deepest intuitions.

 

[joe370]

Intuition also suggests that time is absolute, and yet special relativity denies this, giving examples of where simultaneity is relative. (That is to say, whether or not events A and B occur A then B, B then A, or at the same time can depend on the observer’s frame of reference in certain instances.) When it comes down to the most fundamental parts of physics, there are many things that go directly against our deepest intuitions.

Interesting. However, I think it is reasonable to conclude that everything within space and time has a starting point, as does space and time. Of course you and I both rely on faith regarding our polar opposite beliefs.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Be it philosophical nothing or quantum vacuum nothing, isn’t still nothing? Nothing is not something; it’s nothing. How can the material universe (something) stem from nothing?

Stick around this forum long enough and you’ll come across it. “Nothing” in the quantum vacuum sense isn’t really a “nothing” in the philosophical sense of the word.It still would constitute a material substance. It’s a concept and a usage of the word “nothing” that I think has been further popularized by Laurence Krauss’s book “A Universe from Nothing.”

 

[joe370]

Stick around this forum long enough and you’ll come across it. “Nothing” in the quantum vacuum sense isn’t really a “nothing” in the philosophical sense of the word.It still would constitute a material substance. It’s a concept and a usage of the word “nothing” that I think has been further popularized by Laurence Krauss’s book “A Universe from Nothing.”

Thanks.

 

[Bakmoon]

Interesting. However, I think it is reasonable to conclude that everything within space and time has a starting point, as does space and time. Of course you and I both rely on faith regarding our polar opposite beliefs.

Prior to the development everyone would have thought it just as reasonable, or even more so, to believe that time was absolute. We can’t just assume that even our most reasonable intuitions about reality are correct without confirmation in the real world.

The one other point I would make is that it is called the fallacy of composition to say that because every piece of something has a property, that the whole must also posses that property. Specifically, it is the fallacy of composition to say that the universe must be contingent simply because everything in it is contingent.

[By the way, I respect your beliefs as well. May you be well and happy!]

 

[joe370]

Bakmoon;9688132]Prior to the development everyone would have thought it just as reasonable, or even more so, to believe that time was absolute.

Can science prove that time is absolute? Or does it require faith?

We can’t just assume that even our most reasonable intuitions about reality are correct without confirmation in the real world.

And the real world tells us that something cannot come from nothing.

The one other point I would make is that it is called the fallacy of composition to say that because every piece of something has a property, that the whole must also posses that property.

In other words: just because material stuff within the universe has a property, the universe as a whole does not need to possess property? Did I understand that correctly?

By the way, I respect your beliefs as well. May you be well and happy!]

 

[Hokomai]

Nobody denies that everything created was done by a creator e.g., cars, houses, bridges skyscrapers etc. Does creation itself follow the same paradigm or is creation the only exemption?

Ummm - I have not read through the thread but there is a magnificent circularity in the question. I could equally say: no-one denies that everything that is, is. therefore things just are, and require no explanation or cause. This sort of thing is just word-play dressed up as philosophy. It has no meaning.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Ummm - I have not read through the thread but there is a magnificent circularity in the question. I could equally say: no-one denies that everything that is, is. therefore things just are, and require no explanation or cause. This sort of thing is just word-play dressed up as philosophy. It has no meaning.

Nope, no circularity exists there. Had you read the whole thread, you would have seen several people, myself included, showing others, who posited the same idea as you, saying that the question is simply: “Why is the universe exempt from the creator–>created relation?”

 

[Faithdancer]

Nope, no circularity exists there. Had you read the whole thread, you would have seen several people, myself included, showing others, who posited the same idea as you, saying that the question is simply: “Why is the universe exempt from the creator–>created relation?”

Of course it is not exempt, Alberti, and no number of evasions or straw man arguments can change that. I haven’t seen one atheist yet on these forums who is well read in either Aristotle or Aquinas- that alone makes intelligent debate impossible, on a Catholic forum.

Without a background in classical and scholastic philosophy, one cannot expect to be taken seriously when arguing against Christian theology- which is firmly rooted in classical and scholastic philosophy.

 

[Bakmoon]

Can it be demonstrated that a first point of origin is unnecessary, regarding the universe or universes?:

That question seeks to shift the burden of proof, because in questions of proving the existence or non-existence of something, the burden of proof rests on the side that holds to the existence of the thing which is being argued. If side A claims X exists and side B claims X does not exist, the burden of proof rests with side A.

You are side A in this case, because you are holding to the position that a proof of the necessity of an origin point, and I hold that such a proof does not exist. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate such a proof exists.

Where did our intellect come from, was another question I could not answer as a former agnostic?

The Intellect comes from the mind, which developed from the body, which is the product of evolution.

 

[joe370]

Bakmoon;9691116]That question seeks to shift the burden of proof, because in questions of proving the existence or non-existence of something, the burden of proof rests on the side that holds to the existence of the thing which is being argued. If side A claims X exists and side B claims X does not exist, the burden of proof rests with side A.

You are side A in this case, because you are holding to the position that a proof of the necessity of an origin point, and I hold that such a proof does not exist. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate such a proof exists.

Yes, but I still ask: Can it be demonstrated that a first point of origin is unnecessary, regarding the universe or universes?

The Intellect comes from the mind, which developed from the body, which is the product of evolution.

And evolution is the product of nothing - correct? Can that be scientifically proven or is faith required?

 

[Bakmoon]

Yes, but I still ask: Can it be demonstrated that a first point of origin is unnecessary, regarding the universe or universes?

I am not able to come up with such a demonstration, but the burden of proof still rests on you to show that a proof of its requirement exists, not on me to prove that it need not exist.

And evolution is the product of nothing - correct? Can that be scientifically proven or is faith required?

Evolution isn’t a thing, but a process. It doesn’t make sense to talk about it as being a product of something. It is a description of how lifeforms change, not some sort of causal force.

And the evolution of life forms is strongly established.

 

[joe370]

Bakmoon;9691297]I am not able to come up with such a demonstration, but the burden of proof still rests on you to show that a proof of its requirement exists, not on me to prove that it need not exist.

Not really, simply because I live by faith.

Evolution isn’t a thing, but a process. It doesn’t make sense to talk about it as being a product of something. It is a description of how lifeforms change, not some sort of causal force.

And the evolution of life forms is strongly established.

That’s cool. What bothers me is the idea of evolution being a process with no beginning?

Atheism (not suggesting that you are an atheist) takes a whole lot of faith in my opinion.

 

[pete_29]

Atheism (not suggesting that you are an atheist) takes a whole lot of faith in my opinion.

Ain’t that the truth