no more fairytales about an eternal universe!

[thegrons]

Now the atheists are coming out with different theories of time to get around this issue of the need for a beginning and also to account for the ability for an actual infinite series of events to exist. Because they bring up an interesting point in that time is relative so we humans can only understand time from our conceptual frame work but an infinite universe can exist though it be out of the realm of our understanding. So the axiom that the created cannot be its creator doesn’t bother them. But again I think that if they attribute the attributes of being and creativeness to the universe; they are merely saying that the universe is their prime mover and God.

I preach on campus open air and often have these discussions with students and know that what they believe and are taught are based on their presuppositions and love of sin. They suppress the truth in their unrighteousness and want some justification for their life style and escape from the knowledge of God that He has revealed in them and to them through creation and consciousnesses.

There are no true atheists because the bible tells me so. There are just men running from God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And of course the universe was created from nothing in time. Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

Though this cannot be demonstrated from reason or science, at least that was the opinion of Thomas Aquinas. We accept it on Faith.

Linus2nd

 

[thegrons]

Their argument unfortunately is similar to ours in that their basics presupposition is that the universe always existed and ours is that God always existed. Neither of us can do nothing more than give justification for this belief.

I believe that their god takes more faith to believe than our God. I was once on ask philosohers.org and someone asked the question of the need for logical inference and the philosopher replied: you can’t make a jump from a mud puddle turning into a man… there is not logic to support that inference. I then emailed her and said: “But the evolutionists do this all day long as they teach in the class that a mud puddle turned into a human - only they add billions of years to make it easier to swallow”.

I will say this as an one insider talking to another insider: we really cannot invoke logic when arguing since as humans we have no privileged access to the real world or objectivity. In fact there is not one theory of knowledge that doesn’t beg the question or get caught on an infinite regress so what we have to do is find some sort of way to reason among ourselves and hope that the circle of our reasoning is large enough where it is acceptable. We live in a closed system and are limited by our human reason and senses and cannot reason outside of these. Sort of like looking up a word in a dictionary and then looking up every word in that same dictionary used to define this word. Somewhere in those definitions will be the word we started out with hence we have a circle.

Peace

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Their argument unfortunately is similar to ours in that their basics presupposition is that the universe always existed and ours is that God always existed. Neither of us can do nothing more than give justification for this belief.

I believe that their god takes more faith to believe than our God. I was once on ask philosohers.org and someone asked the question of the need for logical inference and the philosopher replied: you can’t make a jump from a mud puddle turning into a man… there is not logic to support that inference. I then emailed her and said: “But the evolutionists do this all day long as they teach in the class that a mud puddle turned into a human - only they add billions of years to make it easier to swallow”.

I will say this as an one insider talking to another insider: we really cannot invoke logic when arguing since as humans we have no privileged access to the real world or objectivity. In fact there is not one theory of knowledge that doesn’t beg the question or get caught on an infinite regress so what we have to do is find some sort of way to reason among ourselves and hope that the circle of our reasoning is large enough where it is acceptable. We live in a closed system and are limited by our human reason and senses and cannot reason outside of these. Sort of like looking up a word in a dictionary and then looking up every word in that same dictionary used to define this word. Somewhere in those definitions will be the word we started out with hence we have a circle.

Peace

We live in a real world which we can know with certitude and God has given us an intellect and free will and memory to help us navigate our way to Salvation. We could not do this if we were incapable of making logical inferences and deductions. You are living in a universe that doesn’t exist. Come back to the real world.

Linus2nd

 

[thegrons]

Linusthe2nd;

What you are positing is niave realism in that you believe what you see is reality. How would you justify that? If I wanted to I could take you down and infinite regress where you could never ground your beliefs hence you would have no justification for your knowing that what you see is reality. Secondly your reasoning is circular in that you believe that your proposition that “you can know reality” is justified by a “correspondence” to reality. But the problem is circular because your premise assumes the conclusion that you know what reality is. Do you see the issue here?

You as a human cannot know reality. All you can know is what your senses tell you. The best example if this is color. Color has no existence apart from a sentient mind and a pair of eyes that have the ability to see color. I am not talking about light waves but “color”. And whose to say that the people that we call color blind are not the ones that have the truth about color versus you?

So again knowledge is circular and if not then it is grounded in your axioms but then again we could challenge the axioms as well and take those on an infinite regress or find the circularity in them.

Have you ever worked on an excel spreadsheet and got a circular reference error? Sort of like totaling a column of numbers and in that column is a contingency expense that is 10% of the total? Well this is sort of like life for us. We get these circular errors but often they are close enough to the truth that we can accept them.

This is why when we play the logic card in an argument we have to be very careful as to what we charge our opponent with because we are most likely doing the same thing only our circle might be larger and easier to hide.

Another good example is this: Freshman geology class teaches that the fossils found in rock strata date the rocks. Then down the road at the end of the semester they will teach that the fossils are dated by the rock strata that they are found in…the professors would never acknowledge this in one class for everyone would see the absurdity, but spread it out and make the circle large enough and it is easier to hide. Maybe throw in a few other ways to date fossils in the argument but sure enough it will lead back to the circle.

This is the dilemma of humanity in that we cannot step out of our humanity to justify the claims we make of reality through or senses or human reason. We think that since the majority of us see a red apple on a coffee table, then it exists. But what about the person who sees illusions (we call psychotic) and these illusions present themselves to their minds as real as life itself? They would fight tooth and nail that the apple is real, and if there are enough of these psychotic people experiencing the same illusion maybe it is reality?

So we have to find some way to judge our knowledge by a system aside from our human reason and senses - but we can’t because everything is a product of our minds or senses (even computers). Sort of like trying to justify multiplication by using multiplication. Actually what mathematicians do is try to find a meta language to use such as justifying multiplication by addition, then addition must be justified by set theory, then set theory will have to rely on logical axioms (or truths that justify themselves) which are really convention or dogmatism.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd;

What you are positing is niave realism in that you believe what you see is reality. How would you justify that? If I wanted to I could take you down and infinite regress where you could never ground your beliefs hence you would have no justification for your knowing that what you see is reality. Secondly your reasoning is circular in that you believe that your proposition that “you can know reality” is justified by a “correspondence” to reality. But the problem is circular because your premise assumes the conclusion that you know what reality is. Do you see the issue here?

You as a human cannot know reality. All you can know is what your senses tell you. The best example if this is color. Color has no existence apart from a sentient mind and a pair of eyes that have the ability to see color. I am not talking about light waves but “color”. And whose to say that the people that we call color blind are not the ones that have the truth about color versus you?

So again knowledge is circular and if not then it is grounded in your axioms but then again we could challenge the axioms as well and take those on an infinite regress or find the circularity in them.

Have you ever worked on an excel spreadsheet and got a circular reference error? Sort of like totaling a column of numbers and in that column is a contingency expense that is 10% of the total? Well this is sort of like life for us. We get these circular errors but often they are close enough to the truth that we can accept them.

This is why when we play the logic card in an argument we have to be very careful as to what we charge our opponent with because we are most likely doing the same thing only our circle might be larger and easier to hide.

Another good example is this: Freshman geology class teaches that the fossils found in rock strata date the rocks. Then down the road at the end of the semester they will teach that the fossils are dated by the rock strata that they are found in…the professors would never acknowledge this in one class for everyone would see the absurdity, but spread it out and make the circle large enough and it is easier to hide. Maybe throw in a few other ways to date fossils in the argument but sure enough it will lead back to the circle.

This is the dilemma of humanity in that we cannot step out of our humanity to justify the claims we make of reality through or senses or human reason. We think that since the majority of us see a red apple on a coffee table, then it exists. But what about the person who sees illusions (we call psychotic) and these illusions present themselves to their minds as real as life itself? They would fight tooth and nail that the apple is real, and if there are enough of these psychotic people experiencing the same illusion maybe it is reality?

So we have to find some way to judge our knowledge by a system aside from our human reason and senses - but we can’t because everything is a product of our minds or senses (even computers). Sort of like trying to justify multiplication by using multiplication. Actually what mathematicians do is try to find a meta language to use such as justifying multiplication by addition, then addition must be justified by set theory, then set theory will have to rely on logical axioms (or truths that justify themselves) which are really convention or dogmatism.

Pure hokum. But there all kinds of oddities in the world. Hope you enjoy your make believe world.

Linus2nd

 

[thegrons]

Hey Hey we are on the same side buddy, I am simply responding to this post in the manner it was presented which was from a philosophical point of view. You are free to ground your beliefs in whatever you wish…my only point was that the atheist has no more a claim to truth as do you or I and that all of our reasoning has a few warts and pimples.

Go in Peace

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hey Hey we are on the same side buddy, I am simply responding to this post in the manner it was presented which was from a philosophical point of view. You are free to ground your beliefs in whatever you wish…my only point was that the atheist has no more a claim to truth as do you or I and that all of our reasoning has a few warts and pimples.

Go in Peace

Yes, we are far from perfect. But we live in a real world and we know it as real. We obtain it through our senses as you said, but we verify it through our intellect and judgment. There must be some sort of logic disease going aroung because the argument you gave sounded very much like the one given by Rossoum not long ago.

Now, what you said here is not " on my side. "

" What you are positing is niave realism in that you believe what you see is reality. How would you justify that? If I wanted to I could take you down and infinite regress where you could never ground your beliefs hence you would have no justification for your knowing that what you see is reality. Secondly your reasoning is circular in that you believe that your proposition that “you can know reality” is justified by a “correspondence” to reality. But the problem is circular because your premise assumes the conclusion that you know what reality is. Do you see the issue here?

You as a human cannot know reality. All you can know is what your senses tell you. The best example if this is color. Color has no existence apart from a sentient mind and a pair of eyes that have the ability to see color. I am not talking about light waves but “color”. And whose to say that the people that we call color blind are not the ones that have the truth about color versus you?

So again knowledge is circular and if not then it is grounded in your axioms but then again we could challenge the axioms as well and take those on an infinite regress or find the circularity in them. "

If that is what you think, you are welcome to it. But no one actually lives by it, that would be impossible. Its the stuff of logic classes, sad to say.

Linus2nd

 

[thegrons]

How do you know it is real? Descarte said the only thing we can know with certainty is that we exist, beyond that you don’t know if what you see is the real world. You don’t see reality you see what your perception allows you to see.

The real world is made up of atoms electrons neutrons and quarks. You don’t see this real world, what you see is a world that is mediated through your senses. We would agree that God sees the real world. Do you see what God sees such as angels and demons and the particles that make up quarks? No you see the world that you see, not even the world that I see.

Do you see radar waves as the bat does? Those are certainly real? Do you smell that hormones that many animals can smell which are part of the real world? No. So as you can see you don’t see the real world - only the world as interpreted through your senses and the conceptual frame work that has been developed in your from your environment.

I would like to hear your justification for your seeing the real world and all that it contains? How can you prove to me that this is not a dream you are having?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How do you know it is real? Descarte said the only thing we can know with certainty is that we exist, beyond that you don’t know if what you see is the real world. You don’t see reality you see what your perception allows you to see.

The real world is made up of atoms electrons neutrons and quarks. You don’t see this real world, what you see is a world that is mediated through your senses. We would agree that God sees the real world. Do you see what God sees such as angels and demons and the particles that make up quarks? No you see the world that you see, not even the world that I see.

Do you see radar waves as the bat does? Those are certainly real? Do you smell that hormones that many animals can smell which are part of the real world? No. So as you can see you don’t see the real world - only the world as interpreted through your senses and the conceptual frame work that has been developed in your from your environment.

I would like to hear your justification for your seeing the real world and all that it contains? How can you prove to me that this is not a dream you are having?

You and Rossum should get acquainted. I can see that some course in logic has got you all messed up. Of course what we know is mediated by our senses, but what they disclose is the nature of the reality they reveal. My mind recognizes the accidents detected by the senses and distinguishes between those and the nature or reality they reveal. So I know the real world. And the ultimate particles you mention are not operating haphazzard. Their activity is under the guidance and direction of whatever material nature they are a part of. So now where are we?

I really don’t care a whit what poor old Decartes, Kant, and similar weardos thought about anything.

Linus2nd

 

[thegrons]

Where are we now? I would like to hear your justification for your seeing the real world and all that it contains? How can you prove to me that this is not a dream you are having?

These are questions that you will have to give an answer to when debating with the atheist, because these are questions that Agustin and Aquinas wrestled with as well. If you wish to tell someone that these weighty issues are hokum - that is fine but I doubt you would last 30 seconds in a debate about the universe which is the theme of this thread. Albeit this is a bit out of your league so let’s just say good day and good bye.

 

[Linux]

Pure hokum. But there all kinds of oddities in the world. Hope you enjoy your make believe world.

Linus2nd

Is that meant to be an argument? Guess what, its not. But of course you don’t have the patience to make real arguments.

Whether you are right or wrong you have not demonstrated your position to be correct.

 

[Linux]

Where are we now? I would like to hear your justification for your seeing the real world and all that it contains? How can you prove to me that this is not a dream you are having?

These are questions that you will have to give an answer to when debating with the atheist, because these are questions that Agustin and Aquinas wrestled with as well. If you wish to tell someone that these weighty issues are hokum - that is fine but I doubt you would last 30 seconds in a debate about the universe which is the theme of this thread. Albeit this is a bit out of your league so let’s just say good day and good bye.

You are correct to say we cannot be certain that what we perceive with our senses in particular has an objective extension beyond our mind. We cannot say for sure that what we see is how it really is. But there are two things that we do experience for certain, and that is the act of existence in general and change; those two things cannot be denied rationally.

Ignore Linus, he is not a philosopher. He just sees you as someone attacking his faith. He supports Aquinas like someone who supports a football team. It hasn’t really got anything to do with unbiased reasoning.

 

[Bahman]

are you tired of the eternal universe argument? you know its not right but you dont have a good counter argument that just shuts it right down?

let me introduce to you the new, improved lemony fresh shut it down refutation.

“In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, and Alan Guth were able to demonstrate a theorem which proved that any universe which has on average been globally expanding at a positive rate has a past boundary and therefore cannot be infinite in the past.”

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090610175456AAGUNM3

when the leading lights of QM prove that an expanding universe must have a beginning, i think the eternal universe argument we often hear is deader than a doornail!

what do you all think of this?

I think this link could provide a better understanding of Universe.

hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are correct to say we cannot be certain that what we perceive with our senses in particular has an objective extension beyond our mind. We cannot say for sure that what we see is how it really is. But there are two things that we do experience for certain, and that is the act of existence in general and change; those two things cannot be denied rationally.

Ignore Linus, he is not a philosopher. He just sees you as someone attacking his faith. He supports Aquinas like someone who supports a football team. It hasn’t really got anything to do with unbiased reasoning.

Indeed I am biased. I am biased in favor of truth, best exemplified by Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church. And proud of it!

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Indeed I am biased. I am biased in favor of truth, best exemplified by Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church. And proud of it!

Linus2nd

Where does Catholic dogma state we must not believe that the universe is a “virtual reality” created by God. What difference does it make if it is? And what has that got to do with epistemology? The fact is, you have not demonstrated your position, you are just making arguments from authority, without showing anybody how that supports your position logically.

You are not biased in favor of the truth, you are biased in favor of what you want to be true. Your writing style reveals all.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Where does Catholic dogma state we must not believe that the universe is a “virtual reality” created by God. What difference does it make if it is? And what has that got to do with epistemology? The fact is, you have not demonstrated your position, you are just making arguments from authority, without showing anybody how that supports your position logically.

You are not biased in favor of the truth, you are biased in favor of what you want to be true. Your writing style reveals all.

Well, it doesn’t do any good to argue with you. I’ve asked you to show me one philosopher who agrees with you, but apparantly you think you are the best philosopher who ever lived. I see no sign of that because your " logic " is incoherent.

---

For Catholics, other Christians, Jews, and Muslims

It is Defined Catholic Dogma that God created, in time, all creatures out of nothing ( with no parsing of the word " nothing. " It means from no prior existing matter of any kind, including the " near nothing " states proposed by some " wild eyed," popular cosmologists of the day.

So Catholics must believe that God and His creatures are absolutely other than each other. God is no part of His creatures and they are no part of Him. God and His creatures are absolutely distinct, but His creatures are absolutely dependent upon Him for their existence, and they prosper by His Providence and Government…

It is Defined Catholic Dogma that the essential nature of God is that He is One and Simple. Other attributes are also defined but are not essential to this debate.

There is nothing in Catholic teaching about God’s " Esse, " or His " Act of Existence. " These are philosophical terms and no Catholic is bound to accept them. These same terms have been applied to creatures as well. And we are not bound to acknowledge their validity. However it would be foolish to deny their validity in either case, if they are correctly applied. And that is just where the problem lays.

It is interesting that the O.P. useses the term " act of exisiting " and asks us to prove how God could create the " act of exiting " out of nothing. This term was originated by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and showed that God ( the Pure Subsisting Act of Exising ) created the entire universe of creatures ex nihilo, absolutely. And when He did so, He created entire substances, including their " act of existing. " That this is the correct interpretation has been shown in my post # 17. Thomas Aquinas showed in the S.T. Part 1that God is the First Cause of all creatures. In Part 1, he also shows that God created all creatures out of nothing.

Now to demand a blow by blow account as to just how God pulled off these stupendous miracles is asking us to examine the mind of God and that is just spurious in the extreme. All the best minds the world has ever known can do is demonstrate that this is a necessary conclusion. That is, because God exists, we exist.

The O.P. has put forward a number of propositions which cannot be held by Catholics.

1. God cannot create an " act of existing " which is not His Own Act of Existing
2. God cannot create an " act of existing " ex nihilo.
3. We exist, ontologically, in the mind of God.
4. The universe exists, ontologicallly, in the mind of God.
5. God’s " Act of Existing " is the " act of existing " of creatures.
6. God is the only Esse
7. There are no created esses that are separate and distinct from God’s own Esse.
   8, That God creates Essences by sharing with them His Own Esse
8. To excape the odium of an heresy akin to Pantheism because of point # 8, he says that Essence is distinct from Esse. And so God’s Esse is not a part of the created Essence. He fails to see that this has left him in the realm of Prue Ideas, that the world is nothing but a collection of Forms without real substance, a world of non-being, because for a being to exist, it must have its own Esse. But under his philosophy, this is impossible.

• It is possible that I have overlooked other errors.

** It should be noted that Thomas Aquinas teaches that essence and esse are distinct, yet esse is the most important principle of a substance, it is most interior to it and is that whereby an essence becomes a being or substance. It composes with the form and the matter, if any, to make one substance, one being.

*** St Thomas, contrary to what the O.P. says, teaches that God creates entire substances in His act of creation, and the first of His created effect, interior to the substance, is the substance’s very own act of existence, which is limited by the form or nature of each particualr substance. And further, Thomas teaches that we must hold on Faith, that God has created the universe ex nihilo in time.

He futher teaches that God, though operating most intimately in His creation. is absolutely transcendent to it and does not mix with it in any ontological way. This is also the teaching of the Church.

**** All the arguments against his positions have been given by myself, Utunumsint, Hicetnunc, and Prodigal Son, and Polytropos earlier in this thread. You can read them for yoursef, they are St. Thomas’ own arguments.

Linus2nd

 

[meinfinitist]

why only one big bang, in your mind?

In my evolved brain i think of an infinity of big bangs, and that is an overwhelming
good feeling.

Thank you infinity!