Good Books on, and in refutation of, Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter YehoiakhinEx232
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wesrock said:
You’re insisting on conceiving the UC as having duration and successive moments.
Click to expand...
In the first instance, no proposal has yet been made that the uc is outside time. If it created this universe then we can assume that time within this universe was itself created so it would be outside that. But we have no conception of what is/was on the other side of the Big Bang (note I say ‘other side’ as opposed to ‘before’).

What perhaps lays on the other side is our uc existing in an infinite amount of time. Now we know an infinite amount of time doesn’t work in this universe because of entropy. But if nothing exists except the uc, then there is no problem at all. We can have temporal progression. Hence change.

For an infinite amount of time there was nothing, then our universe was created. If that’s not change then what is?

And in any case, there are reasonable proposals that time is not linear in any case and doesn’t ‘proceed’ as we know it. That time is part of existence as is space and as we move throughnit we sense temporal progression. But you could slice a piece of space-time and see the differences between one point and another. You could see change. Even if there are no ‘succesive moments’.

So your claim that the uc cannot temporally change can be rejected on those grounds alone.
 
Wesrock said:
40.png
Wozza:
40.png
IWantGod:
40.png
Wesrock:
Again, maybe we should put aside Will and work with the other Attributes for now, and revisit Will later.
Click to expand...
Not that i want to stop you from continuing, but he rejects the principle of non-contradiction. That needs to be addressed before you can convince him that any rational inference is possible.
Click to expand...
Say what? I have already, for the sake of this discussion, accepted an uncaused cause. Let’s at least get to a point where we have agreement and see where it goes.
Click to expand...
I think his concern is that if you don’t adhere to the principle of non-contradiction then whether or not an argument is self-contradicting is irrelevant, as the contradiction doesn’t demonstrate it wrong, and a non-contradiction wouldn’t mean anything at all in terms of it being right.
Click to expand...
Be aware that I’m only applying this to physics. Something can appear to be logically sound (something can’t be in two places at once) but isn’t necessarily the case. And when we are talking about the creation of the universe at which point even the standard laws of physics do not apply, then simply saying ‘It’s obvious, isn’t it?’ cuts little ice.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Wozza:
For an infinite amount of time there was nothing, then our universe was created. If that’s not change then what is?
Click to expand...
Who made that argument?
Click to expand...
It’s not an argument. It’s as reasonable a proposition as anything else that has been put forward. If you remember, I asked if you knew what was on the other side of the Big Bang.

Do you have any reason to reject it? And I SERIOUSLY hope you don’t say it’s because we can never know.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Wozza:
I asked if you knew what was on the other side of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
What has the Big-Bang got to do with metaphysics? I already explained why it’s irrelevant.
Click to expand...
We are discussing the very creation of the universe. Good luck trying to cover that without bringing in physics.
 
Wozza said:
40.png
IWantGod:
40.png
Wozza:
I asked if you knew what was on the other side of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
What has the Big-Bang got to do with metaphysics? I already explained why it’s irrelevant.
Click to expand...
We are discussing the very creation of the universe. Good luck trying to cover that without bringing in physics.
Click to expand...
We’re not, actually. At least not particularly.
 
Wozza said:
40.png
IWantGod:
40.png
Wozza:
For an infinite amount of time there was nothing, then our universe was created. If that’s not change then what is?
Click to expand...
Who made that argument?
Click to expand...
It’s not an argument. It’s as reasonable a proposition as anything else that has been put forward. If you remember, I asked if you knew what was on the other side of the Big Bang.

Do you have any reason to reject it? And I SERIOUSLY hope you don’t say it’s because we can never know.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually. But I’ll get to that shortly.
 
Wozza said:
We are discussing the very creation of the universe.
Click to expand...
You are discussing the beginning of the universe, a particular event. Science discribes the processes involved in that event. Science deals in physical particulars. Metaphysics deals with the general question of what it means for a thing to exist, and it asks questions like how it is possible for something to become real or what is logically required in-order for that to be possible in the context of existence versus non-existence… Or it asks how it is possible for unnecessary beings to exist. Metaphysics discusses the possibility of something.

I already explained why your statement regarding the big-bang is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
It’s not an argument. It’s as reasonable a proposition as anything else that has been put forward. If you remember, I asked if you knew what was on the other side of the Big Bang.

Do you have any reason to reject it? And I SERIOUSLY hope you don’t say it’s because we can never know.
Click to expand...
The act of creation and existence of God lay at the same point. Therefore there was nothing before BB.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
40.png
Wozza:
It’s not an argument. It’s as reasonable a proposition as anything else that has been put forward. If you remember, I asked if you knew what was on the other side of the Big Bang.

Do you have any reason to reject it? And I SERIOUSLY hope you don’t say it’s because we can never know.
Click to expand...
The act of creation and existence of God lays at the same point. Therefore there was nothing before BB.
Click to expand...
That’s what the discussion is about. Whether from first principles we can say that that is the only option available. Feel free to join in.
 
Wozza said:
That’s what the discussion is about. Whether from first principles we can say that that is the only option available. Feel free to join in.
Click to expand...
But that’s not what we are discussing at all. You brought up the big bang, not us.
 
Wozza said:
In the first instance, no proposal has yet been made that the uc is outside time. If it created this universe then we can assume that time within this universe was itself created so it would be outside that. But we have no conception of what is/was on the other side of the Big Bang (note I say ‘other side’ as opposed to ‘before’).
Click to expand...
14. Behold, I answer to him who asks, What was God doing before He made heaven and earth? I answer not, as a certain person is reported to have done facetiously (avoiding the pressure of the question), “He was preparing hell,” says he, “for those who pry into mysteries.” - Saint Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, Book XI.

I share that for humor and because I was reminded of it, not as an argument. Though I will say that Augustine has a very thoughtful reflection on that question, time, and eternity in Book XI (really just a chapter length). While on that subject, though, your profile says you are Anglican. Is that correct? I know you don’t want to associate the First Cause with any concept of God right now, but I’m not sure where you’re coming from. Simply as a Christian, from a theological and Church perspective, it might interest you that Augustine and many others rejected the notion of God existing for infinite time before Creation. I am agreed, though, that we cannot simply import that to the First Cause. If it is true for the First Cause, then it must be demonstrated strictly by reason.

Back to the topic at hand, the First Cause is not just the initiator of this universe, but the cause of all moments and things of reality other than itself. Furthermore, on the question of “before the BIg Bang,” we should understand that we’re not just concerned with just the things that resulted from the Big Bang we know. If the universe has been banging and crunching for ages, or if we’re in a multiverse, or what have you, the First Cause would be the First Cause of all of it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top