7. In other words, your god idea isn’t automatically right just because we don’t know the cause of the Big Bang or if the concept of “cause” applies to the Big Bang.
your correct that the concept of G-d isn’t right because we dont know what the non-physical cause is, however we do know that it must be sufficient to create the universe, and that it cannot reasonably be random, in order to create this specific universe.
as to the concept of cause applying to the BB, i will repeat the above refutation for clarity
for what reason should one assume that ‘cause’ is not required in the case of the universe, when it applies to every constituent part of it?
thats similar to saying something like ‘my cells need oxygen to survive, but my body doesn’t.’
its non sensical to say that all of the parts of the universe require cause, yet the universe as a whole does not.
- There’s always going to be the problem of infinite regress unless we draw the line somewhere and say “uncaused cause.” I draw the line at matter itself
since matter cannot create itself, i see no rational, or logical reason to draw the line there. that fact would seem to be indicative that the line cannot reasonably be drawn there.
further, we cant always have the problem of infinite regress, either. the regression stops at a non-physical cause, because, as above, there is no rational reason for the non-physical to be held to the same laws of physics, time and causality as the physical.
- Honestly, warpspeedpetey, it’s frustrating talking to you because you don’t even acknowledge the points I raise. You just go on posting the same tired nonsense without even attempting to address anything I say
a refutation is an acknowledgement, it says i believe you are wrong for X reason. this isn’t about emotion, its about intellectual endeavors to the truth. cowboy up.
- Please go back and read what I said carefully. No one is claiming that matter caused itself or that it came from nothing.
you seem to be claiming that it came from a vacuum fluctuation, i refuted that argument by showing that you are relying on a theory, with no evidence, namely a quantum system pre existing the BB, and then pointing out at least 2 reasons that any such system would require a cause to exist.
- if the best evidence you have for your god is some specious reasoning that starts with “everything has a cause” and ends with “Magic Man doesn’t need a cause,” then I’m sorry, you have no evidence for your position. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would laugh in the face of such embarassing arguments.
refutation.
a search on amazon of “the philosophy of aquinas” turns up 4813 results, he has influenced all of western philosophy, and has been treated by most major philosophers, and has a university named after him.
he also wrote a quite popular book called the summa theologica, you may have heard of it
that said, notice that i followed each argument you made with a refutation based on a rational or logical argument. i try not to simply make statements.
you must have a reason to hold some position, opinion is inadequate, as are statements with no supporting logic or argumentation.
please respond to my refutations in a like manner. with your own refutations based on rational and logical ideas.
then the truth may be found, with intellectual discourse.
).