Letter to a Christian Nation

[Leela]

Leela:
But back to the topic at hand. Leela, does the concept of infinite time necessarily have to progress equally in both directions? Can’t time have a starting point or beginning and then progress infinitely from that point on? I believe it’s perfectly well within God’s ability to start a universe on an infinite path.

-Joan

Hi Joan,

What was being discussed is the First Cause argument. It is my understanding that this argument begins with the assumption that the universe had a beginning. I argued that this may be so, but it also may not be true. Perhaps the universe has always existed. Perhaps multiple universes exist simultaneously. Perhaps Big Bangs and contractions followed by another Big Bang continue to cycle without beginning or end.

I don’t think such questions have been answered definitively by science, so an argument that depends on the universe having a beginning may be on shaky ground. I’m not sure that this is something that we can ever know.

Are you familiar with the First Cause argument? Is this an argument you find convincing?

I am willing to accept for the sake of argument that the universe did have a beginning. At this point I’d like to continue from there. How does the reasoning proceed from the universe having a beginning to the existence of the personal deity of Catholic belief?

Best,
Leela

PS, thanks for standing up for me. I know you are not necessarily sympathetic to my views and, like others around here ,may have simply chosen to allow such harassment from someone opposing a nonbeliever.

 

[IloveTheLord]

Wow, now I know how the actors who were accused of being communists during the Mccarthy trials felt. You can basically accuse me and Leela of being the same person, and there’s no way for me to defend myself. All I can really say is that I am not Leela, Swan, or anyone else on this board. If you don’t believe me, that’s your problem, not mine. If you find it convenient to lump all people together who disagree with you, Christian or otherwise, that’s certainly your prerogative, but note that I could also claim that you and JD are the same person too. Isn’t a bit suspicious that you both signed up less than a month apart from each other? And “3. you have the same opinions” as JD too. Hmmm. You two must either be the same person or in cahoots.

I also notice that you chose to play your poor-man’s Sherlock Holmes routine rather than addressing the point of my post, which is that you, Petey, are a bully and a hypocrite who does not follow his own admonitions to provide evidence or citations of his claims. Why do you keep avoiding this point? Because you know it’s true? Are you really that incapable of having a charitable and civil conversation? I fear you’re having the opposite effect on “newcomers” that you intended. If you’re the self-appointed spokesperson for the “unaware,” I wouldn’t blame them for running in the other direction. You’re exactly the sort of mean-spirited, paranoid, and self-righteous person who drove me away from the Church the first time.

Of course, I don’t really expect an answer to these questions and instead am prepared for the usual barrage of unsubstantiated personal attacks to misdirect the conversation from the actual topic at hand.

I must admit that you had me fooled at first and that I lapped up your claims about science. I consider the reconciliation of science and faith a personal hurdle of mine and had been hoping for some substantial arguments from your posts, but now I see that they were nothing but a bunch of generalities with no substance.

-Joan

 

[Swan]

funny that you should post, i can only believe that you are in cahoots with leela, otherwise you would have defended her to a number of other people who found her m.o. to be less than acceptable

want a little payback for having your arguments destroyed the other day?

if this keeps up i believe i could gather quite the metaphorical lynch mob.

all these posts are recorded, you wont get me kicked with this strategy,

but plagiarism is very bad form, serial plagiarism is extremely bad form.

and its very sad that your arguments are so weak as to have this attack as a strategy to win some contest.

if you cant beat them, get them banned

i think i will call that the IYCBTGTB strategy

have a nice day

Clearly, you believe whatever suits you regardless of what others say, so this will be no change. I have no idea what you are talking about and have finally come to the conculsion that you don’t either. I’m putting you on ignore.

 

[Leela]

Clearly, you believe whatever suits you regardless of what others say, so this will be no change. I have no idea what you are talking about and have finally come to the conculsion that you don’t either. I’m putting you on ignore.

HI Swan,

I’ve already done the same which I should have done long ago when he posted this:

for me if the data doesn’t fit i change it, if that don’t work i spin it to fit the argument i already believe, if that doesn’t work then obviously those who don’t agree with me must be unreasonable and biased.

but thats just me

Note to anyone else reading: If there are any actual questions or arguments made by Petey that you would like me to address, please post them to me as I am not able to see posts by Petey anymore.

…moving on.

Do you have any thoughts with regard to the First Cause argument. We have been stuck on arguing about whether infinities exist and whether the universe has a beginning. I am willing to accept for the sake of argument that the universe did have a beginning. Can anyone discuss with me how the First Cause argument plays out from there?

Best,
Leela

 

[IloveTheLord]

Leela,

I don’t think it’s that difficult to conceive of a God that’s capable of existing beyond time and space. God could easily create a universe that has the appearance of being infinite in both directions, just as I can create a mobius strip which, to an ant walking across its surface, would seem infinite.

To borrow one of your own phrases, I think you might be asking the “wrong question” when you’re trying to to establish the existence of infinities. It seems an unnecessary aspect of the issue to me.

Perhaps the universe has always existed. Perhaps multiple universes exist simultaneously. Perhaps Big Bangs and contractions followed by another Big Bang continue to cycle without beginning or end.

And God would certainly be capable of creating any of these scenarios. That’s where faith in the “personal deity of Catholic belief” comes in for me.

thanks for standing up for me. I know you are not necessarily sympathetic to my views and, like others around here ,may have simply chosen to allow such harassment from someone opposing a nonbeliever.

I don’t think I was so much standing up for you as calling Petey out for being un-Christian. I definitely don’t agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but there’s no need for hostility.

-Joan

 

[Leela]

Hi Joan,

If certain people around here are right, then we are both having a conversation with ourselves!

Leela,

I don’t think it’s that difficult to conceive of a God that’s capable of existing beyond time and space. God could easily create a universe that has the appearance of being infinite in both directions, just as I can create a mobius strip which, to an ant walking across its surface, would seem infinite.

To borrow one of your own phrases, I think you might be asking the “wrong question” when you’re trying to to establish the existence of infinities. It seems an unnecessary aspect of the issue to me.

I’m glad you think so because I’m getting tired of debating about whether different locations in space or different moments in time actually exist. You may be correct that differences of opinion in the matter are the result of a “wrong question”–one that is asked based on fundamentally flawed assumptions.

And God would certainly be capable of creating any of these scenarios. That’s where faith in the “personal deity of Catholic belief” comes in for me.

I noted that in another post you said that an issue for you is trying to reconcile your faith with science. I think the perspective I’ve been discussing in the STEM, STEMG, Other? thread is one where science and religion and even art can be reconciled where science is not a sterile, artless, value-free endeavor, true spirituality can be discovered and talked about rationally, morality is not just a relativistic cultural construct, and art is not a mere frill. I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on my posts in that thread.

I don’t think I was so much standing up for you as calling Petey out for being un-Christian. I definitely don’t agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but there’s no need for hostility.

-Joan

I understand that we will probably not agree on some things, but I look forward to dialog with you since you seem to be able to maintain a respectful civil tone while disagreeing.

Best,
Leela

 

[Fran65]

This should be interesting. I look forward to reading the dialogue.