If God can be 'uncreated & unchanging', why not the universe too?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bahman said:
The universe could be uncaused but it cannot be eternal.
Click to expand...
According to the cyclical theory, the universe would be eternal, with the extra energy needed for the cycles being supplied by gravity.
 
Nixbits said:
John, I’m sure it will not come as a surprise to you that the four arguments cited by Randy Carson are not universally accepted as true. Many people have found fault with both the premises and/or the reasoning in each of them. So I contend that another reason for someone not accepting them is because the person believes them to be unjustified.
Click to expand...
You contend because a lot of other people have contended?
Popular opinion killed Socrates.
No, popular opinion does not mean anything - sound reason has always been an extremely rare commodity.
Your contention shows you are simply going with the crowd, per your own words.
 
John Martin:
You contend because a lot of other people have contended?
Click to expand...
No. I did not say this. I contend because I believe your assertion to be wrong. I believe it to be wrong because I have looked at these and other arguments for the existence of God that have been put forward and I have found them all to be flawed, in my opinion. The fact that others also find them to be flawed is incidental. However, the fact that certain other people that I believe are more intellectually discerning than me also find them flawed adds support to my own level of confidence in my opinion.
John Martin:
No, popular opinion does not mean anything - sound reason has always been an extremely rare commodity.
Click to expand...
I agree.
John Martin:
Your contention shows you are simply going with the crowd, per your own words.
Click to expand...
No, I disagree entirely. The fact that a crowd of people agree with me is no more relevant than that a crowd of people agree with you.
 
Nixbits said:
No. I did not say this. I contend because I believe your assertion to be wrong. I believe it to be wrong because I have looked at these and other arguments for the existence of God that have been put forward and I have found them all to be flawed, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Can you give us your synopsis of what the best of these arguments are, and what you find wanting in it?
 
40.png
PRmerger:
Can you give us your synopsis of what the best of these arguments are, and what you find wanting in it?
Click to expand...
I can give it a try, although I think that any discussion would be off-topic for this thread. Would you like to nominate which argument you think is the ‘best’? Because I think they are all flawed and would be hard-pressed to identify the least flawed one.
 
Nixbits said:
I can give it a try, although I think that any discussion would be off-topic for this thread. Would you like to nominate which argument you think is the ‘best’? Because I think they are all flawed and would be hard-pressed to identify the least flawed one.
Click to expand...
Here is the argument given before all the others.
Randy_Carson said:
Because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we know that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe were infinitely old, then it would have ALREADY run out of light and heat, etc. The fact that this is NOT the case points to the fact that the universe is NOT infinitely old. Therefore, it had a beginning…
Click to expand...
I have an idea of why this is flawed. For one thing, I think that the cyclical theory answers the objection by referring to the effects of gravity. But I am interested in your take on this. Thanks.
 
Tomdstone said:
There may be other arguments which are [also] convincing, but [some] non-believers are not buying these particular arguments -]all of/-] which they find unconvincing as has been pointed out previously.
Click to expand...
I correct that to reflect reality a little more closely. :tiphat:
 
Tomdstone said:
Here is the argument given before all the others.
I have an idea of why this is flawed. For one thing, I think that the cyclical theory answers the objection by referring to the effects of gravity. But I am interested in your take on this. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The Oscillating or Cyclical Universe Theory was popular in the 60’s and 70’s but has fallen out of favor in part because:
  1. scientists now believe the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate (IOW, it will expand forever),
  2. we should have run out of usable energy by now if the universe were infinitely old, and
  3. this theory really doesn’t solve the problem of why something exists rather than nothing - it simply kicks the can further back in time.
 
Randy_Carson said:
The Oscillating or Cyclical Universe Theory was popular in the 60’s and 70’s but has fallen out of favor in part because:
  1. scientists now believe the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate (IOW, it will expand forever),
  2. we should have run out of usable energy by now if the universe were infinitely old, and
  3. this theory really doesn’t solve the problem of why something exists rather than nothing - it simply kicks the can further back in time.
Click to expand...
The cyclic theory has been revised recently in a way to overcome previous objections. Gravity supplies the energy needed.
The question as why does something exist has been compared to asking much easier questions such as why did God make the earth with only one moon and not two? Why did God make the Zika virus ? Let’s first answer these easier questions, and there are a lot more of them that have no satisfactory answer.
 
Tomdstone said:
The cyclic theory has been revised recently in a way to overcome previous objections. Gravity supplies the energy needed.
The question as why does something exist has been compared to asking much easier questions such as why did God make the earth with only one moon and not two? Why did God make the Zika virus ? Let’s first answer these easier questions, and there are a lot more of them that have no satisfactory answer.
Click to expand...
So, our universe exists inside of a black hole which exists in a universe which exists inside of another universe…

And we’re back to an infinite regression, are we?
 
Nixbits said:
I can give it a try, although I think that any discussion would be off-topic for this thread. Would you like to nominate which argument you think is the ‘best’? Because I think they are all flawed and would be hard-pressed to identify the least flawed one.
Click to expand...
Just give me the one you find to be the best of the flawed, and why you find it wanting.
 
Randy_Carson said:
So, our universe exists inside of a black hole which exists in a universe which exists inside of another universe…
Click to expand...
Misquoting people and misstating their arguments causes one to lose credibility. I don;t see where anyone has proposed that.
 
Tomdstone said:
This much is true. Yes. I don’t see any logical inconsistency in an infinite regression. It is used all the time in mathematics.
Click to expand...
It is actually not “used all the time in mathematics”.

At least, not with reference to a current point in time. That is, the present.
 
PRmerger said:
You don’t believe in a creator, Tom?
Click to expand...
Let’s stop with the ad hominem arguments.
If you want to discuss the Kalam argument, seriously, OK. Otherwise just forget that I ever critiqued it. It should not be necessary to point out that the fact that someone does not find a particular argument convincing does not imply that the person is an atheist.
 
Tomdstone said:
Otherwise just forget that I ever critiqued it
Click to expand...
And where have you critiqued it?
It should not be necessary to point out that the fact that someone does not find a particular argument convincing does not imply that the person is an atheist.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what your beliefs are, Tom.

If you do believe in God, then you’ll need to offer some reasons why you do believe this.

If you don’t, then you’ll have to offer some reasons why you don’t believe this.

And you’ve been asked to say, in your own words, why you believe the Kalaam argument to be wanting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top