What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

[Moonstruck888]

I was merely pointing out that you were misunderstanding what JohnDamian was saying. He was talking about the initial observation or observations as necessarily coming before we begin to ask the question of how what is being observed came to be. You leaped to the incorrect assumption that he meant experimental observations rather than initial observations.

I’m quite sure he’s capable of going to bat for himself. If he did mean what you say, then he worded his statements with appalling lack of clarity.

 

[Moonstruck888]

This is incorrect. No mass can ever be infinite according to the laws of physics; for mass is itself a property of matter; and as a finite and discernible property it can never reach an infinite number; even if it were multiplied or subjected to addition for all eternity.

If you disagree; tell me which number specifically preceeds infinity; so when after that number; by addition or multiplication an infinity is composed.

The point that you seem to be missing with consummate skill is that while infinity can never be reached it still exists as a concept and we can learn from it.

How tired; just because you are unable to understand logic and ontology does not mean it is incorrect.

Agreed. It is the fact that you are unable to draw valid conclusions that means you’re incorrect.

You brought it up; with the claim that God must have discerible evidence if he acts within the physical world. This is not the case.

Yes it is. If God impregnates virgins, makes bushes spontaneously combust, allows a human to spend three days living in the entrails of a whale or parts the red sea, that has a discernible, measurable and recordable effect on the physical world.

Trying to evade that is utterly illogical and completely counter to reason.

That is a very nice idea; where in Christian Doctrine is this stated? I know full well that I subscribe to the Acceptance theory of atonement which is consistent with Catholic Doctine and does not make this odd claim you seem to be voicing.

Surely, as a Catholic, you must remember the whole thing about Jesus being crucified to death on a cross to save mankind through his sacrifice? In order for Jesus to die, he had to be incarnated as a mortal.

Good. Then why do you ask for scientific evidence for God; making the odd assumption science can verify this particular entity.

Why is it an odd assumption? You can’t create a Universe without leaving some traces of your handiwork behind.

Do you disregard mathematics and logic as not systematic reasoning? Science has NO reasoning in it. It merely applies the reasoning of philosophical empiricism (ie; Hume etc.) - but does not have any reasoning itself; it is merely a mechanical appliance of the philosophy of science.

I regard mathematics and logic as tools that a scientist can use. Human reasoning is very limited and open to interpretation. Science cuts through the limits of human reasoning by empirical testing.

Give me a hot new application of philosophy, if you can? What cutting edge technical feats has philosophy achieved in the last decade?

 

[tonyrey]

Significance is an absolutely ridiculous choice of word here, and I have refuted every point you’ve made.

You are better at making claims than substantiating them…

If you can’t see that energy conservation is intrinsic to the Universe, then I suggest you change your optician.

Your insults don’t alter the fact that:

1. You still have not faced up to the problem of induction.
2. Your view is parochial and unbalanced, attributing too much importance to the past at the expense of the future.
3. You single out the Big Bang as more significant than its consequences yet an atomistic view of any process is inevitably misleading.
4. Your reasoning itself is purposeful yet you discard purpose as an insignificant byproduct…
5. There is no reason to suppose the physical universe is the sole reality.

 

[Moonstruck888]

No thanks. The testimony of the Disciples, especially their example, carries a bit more weight than the testimony of greylorn.

Admitting that nobody including you actually knows where the Universe came from would be an excellent place to start.

 

[Moonstruck888]

1. You still have not faced up to the problem of induction.

I haven’t lost a second’s sleep over the soi disant “problem of induction”.

1. Your view is parochial and unbalanced, attributing too much importance to the past at the expense of the future.

You can learn a lot from the past, and very little if anything at all from the future…

1. You single out the Big Bang as more significant than its consequences yet an atomistic view of any process is inevitably misleading.

No I don’t. I don’t attribute any significance to the big bang or it’s consequences.

1. Your reasoning itself is purposeful yet you discard purpose as an insignificant byproduct…

I simply don’t think of it in those kinds of terms.

1. There is no reason to suppose the physical universe is the sole reality.

At no point have I ever claimed there was.

 

[JohnDamian]

The point that you seem to be missing with consummate skill is that while infinity can never be reached it still exists as a concept and we can learn from it.

We can learn nothing from a meaningless and insane concept such as infinity. No sane educated person would every use it as a quantitative measure.

Agreed. It is the fact that you are unable to draw valid conclusions that means you’re incorrect.

Induction creates logically valid conclusions.

Yes it is. If God impregnates virgins, makes bushes spontaneously combust, allows a human to spend three days living in the entrails of a whale or parts the red sea, that has a discernible, measurable and recordable effect on the physical world.

Trying to evade that is utterly illogical and completely counter to reason.

It is dissapointing that you seem unable to understand the distinction that whilst some acts attributed to God clearly have a physical and material effect; that it does not follow that all ones must have. That is just plain shoddy reasoning.

Surely, as a Catholic, you must remember the whole thing about Jesus being crucified to death on a cross to save mankind through his sacrifice? In order for Jesus to die, he had to be incarnated as a mortal.

As a Catholic; in Accordance with the Teachings of the Church it is clear Jesus did not have to die. It is clear from the Acceptance theory of atonement that this is not the case. You are presenting a straw man.

Why is it an odd assumption? You can’t create a Universe without leaving some traces of your handiwork behind.

Logically speaking; it is clear that if something is created that that something is evidence itself of it’s being; however a valid inference cannot be physically demonstrated as to a specific mode or function. There is no reason to conclude the latter even if one accepts the former.

I regard mathematics and logic as tools that a scientist can use. Human reasoning is very limited and open to interpretation. Science cuts through the limits of human reasoning by empirical testing.

Problem of induction here.

I haven’t lost a second’s sleep over the soi disant “problem of induction”.

Then you must have been sleeping when your proffessor was talking about research validity.

You can learn a lot from the past, and very little if anything at all from the future…

This is sheer relativism. The future is clearly identical to the present when it occurs; and such your equivocation is meaningless.

 

[Moonstruck888]

We can learn nothing from a meaningless and insane concept such as infinity. No sane educated person would every use it as a quantitative measure.

Fine, but we are not a we. You can’t learn anything from the concept of infinity. Like most young people, you can’t actually learn about anything because you know everything already.

It is dissapointing that you seem unable to understand the distinction that whilst some acts attributed to God clearly have a physical and material effect; that it does not follow that all ones must have. That is just plain shoddy reasoning.

For God to interact with physical reality God must interact with physical reality. There is simply no argument about that. If God wants to sit outside physical reality doing nothing, then what concern is he of ours?

As a Catholic; in Accordance with the Teachings of the Church it is clear Jesus did not have to die. It is clear from the Acceptance theory of atonement that this is not the case. You are presenting a straw man.

If he hadn’t died, humanity would not have been saved.

Logically speaking; it is clear that if something is created that that something is evidence itself of it’s being; however a valid inference cannot be physically demonstrated as to a specific mode or function. There is no reason to conclude the latter even if one accepts the former.

Then why do you believe in God since as you say you he cannot be validly inferred?

Then you must have been sleeping when your proffessor was talking about research validity.

I didn’t study philosophy at University. The word induction didn’t come up, they simply taught us how to perform and invigilate controlled experiments.

This is sheer relativism. The future is clearly identical to the present when it occurs; and such your equivocation is meaningless.

Odd… Try as I might I simply cannot remember what’s going to happen a week next Tuesday, while I can remember what did happen a weak last Tuesday and experience what is happening right now. You’re talking utter tosh.

 

[Alindawyl]

Admitting that nobody including you actually knows where the Universe came from would be an excellent place to start.

If I was an atheist then I’d more than happily join you in proclaiming my ignorance of the origin of reality. However, I have to deal with the objective fact of God’s existence. That places me in the position of either professing belief in what you consider to be a fairy tale (God) or professing belief in what I consider to be a lie (eternal/uncaused universe).

I choose not to lie to myself. So fairy tale it is.

 

[Moonstruck888]

If I was an atheist then I’d more than happily join you in proclaiming my ignorance of the origin of reality. However, I have to deal with the objective fact of God’s existence. That places me in the position of either professing belief in what you consider to be a fairy tale (God) or professing belief in what I consider to be a lie (eternal/uncaused universe).

I choose not to lie to myself. So fairy tale it is.

If God’s existence was an objective fact, belief would not be necessary and there would be no non believers.

 

[greylorn]

This conjectural “precursor to the BB” which you posit was composed of stuff has also not been observed. Where is your evidence that such a thing exists?

Based on various testimony, ranging from the example of the Disciples to miracles to reason, I believe that that something which caused the Big Bang is God.

That “something else” according to Catholic teaching is God. That “something else” according to your teaching is… what? Some undefined part of this “eternal universe”, a thing which we can neither observe nor interact with.

That’s all fine and dandy, but why should anyone accept your wishful thinking on this? Has this unobserved cause of the Big Bang spoken to you? Revealed itself to you? Told you anything about itself? If it hasn’t, how do we know it’s there? I mean, we can’t observe it. Our observations of the universe only go back 14 billion years or so, give or take a billion. It would HAVE to reveal itself to us for us to know it exists.

No thanks. The testimony of the Disciples, especially their example, carries a bit more weight than the testimony of greylorn.

I have answers to all your questions, but, given your final two sentences, there is not any point in explaining them, is there?

 

[tonyrey]

If God’s existence was an objective fact, belief would not be necessary and there would be no non believers.

Faulty logic:

1. There are many objective facts of which human beings are not aware.
2. There are objective facts of which human beings are aware but which they refuse to accept.
3. Belief is necessary because people **interpret **objective facts differently.

 

[tonyrey]

I haven’t lost a second’s sleep over the soi disant “problem of induction”.

That is irrevelant. What is more to the point is your superficiality when you are not asleep!

You can learn a lot from the past, and very little if anything at all from the future…

Another proof of your superficiality. You spend most of your life looking backwards!

No I don’t. I don’t attribute any significance to the big bang or its consequences.

Yet another proof of your superficiality!

I simply don’t think of it in those kinds of terms.

In other words you ignore inconvenient facts!

At no point have I ever claimed there was.

Yet you don’t attribute any significance to the Big Bang! Do you attribute significance to anything except your opinion?

 

[JohnDamian]

Fine, but we are not a we. You can’t learn anything from the concept of infinity…

You have confused me; what can you as a Scientist learn from an impractical and ludicrous concept such as infinity (as present in numerical terms)?

Like most young people, you can’t actually learn about anything because you know everything already.

What would be more accurate is to say that you are offering no valid counterarguments; instead a barrage of Straw men (below) and Ad-Hominems.

If he hadn’t died, humanity would not have been saved.

This is an absurd representation of Catholic theology. Where did you pull this one from?

Whilst it is true that St. Anselms configuration of the acceptance theory was popular in the 13th Centuary. Christianity from the Ages gives a good run down on why your idea is a straw man;

“[Scotus] would not say, with Anselm, that if God wished to forgive men’s sins He was bound to become incarnate and die on the cross, nor did he hold, with Aquinas, that the incarnation and the crucifixion were the wisest way to achieve man’s salvation. Instead, he said that they were the way chosen by God”

Such critical and cautious reasoning is required in theology to avoid making assumptions. Your argument was a misrepresentation of Catholic Theology. This distinction between the “need for incarnation” (Anselm) the “wisdom of incarnation” (Aquinas) and the “choice of incarnation” (Scotus) show us that there are far more than one acceptance theory of atonement.

Then why do you believe in God since as you say you he cannot be validly inferred?

I shall give you the credit of presuming you are merely imprecise rather than stating that this is another straw man. I said a valid inference cannot be demonstrated from physical particulars or functions. It is self-evident that a valid inference can be demonstrated from factual or logical particulars however.

I didn’t study philosophy at University. The word induction didn’t come up, they simply taught us how to perform and invigilate controlled experiments.

This depends what your subject was. However I am sure that if your Subject had any research involved in it; it would have demonstrated research reliability and validity; which both contain induction. I cannot believe anyone who has gone to university to study any of the sciences or humanities has not come across the word induction. The majority of sciences use what is called the “Scientific Method” which contains what is called “inductive probability”. But I will give you the credit of assuming you didn’t do research.

Odd… Try as I might I simply cannot remember what’s going to happen a week next Tuesday, while I can remember what did happen a weak last Tuesday and experience what is happening right now. You’re talking utter tosh.

The future and the past and the present contain periods of time. The period of time that is “tuesday; five oclock” is identical to “monday; two oclock” insofar as Nothing material or physical exerts have ever been demonstrated to exert any causal effect on time. Therefore; whilst the events occuring within time clearly change; time itself does not.

If you disagree; please wheel out your time-manipulator… In the absence of some demonstration of the malliability of time – You’re spouting unverified and unexamined pseudoscientific nonsense - the irony of which is not lost on me.

 

[Alindawyl]

If God’s existence was an objective fact, belief would not be necessary and there would be no non believers.

Just because something is objectively true doesn’t mean that we must, by necessity, believe it. People refuse to believe the truth about a variety of things all the time, either because they’re afraid of the truth or because they would prefer that something else be true instead.

 

[Alindawyl]

I have answers to all your questions, but, given your final two sentences, there is not any point in explaining them, is there?

That depends on what you think the point is.

The point, to me, is satisfying my curiosity. I like finding out what people who disagree with the Church believe and why. I also like finding out how people who agree with the Church think about and approach various concepts and teachings. Converting people is not my goal. It’d be great if you chose to place your faith in Jesus Christ based on my words, but I don’t consider myself adequate in that capacity so have no expectation in that regard. I’m too much of a self-centered dork to be a great example.

Should your goal not be sharing your opinion but converting people to your point of view, then I’m not going to lie - you will not achieve that goal when it comes to me. It doesn’t mean I think negatively of you. I simply consider Jesus Christ to be a stronger authority figure in these matters. It’d be like if Jesus was an auto shop and you were a bank. You could be the best bank in the world and know all about financial things. I might use you for my checking/savings account or a mortgage. But I’m still going to take my car to the auto shop instead of you when it breaks, because the auto shop is an authority in car repairs and you aren’t.

Yeah, I know. My analogies are usually rather silly

But regardless, if my statement that you will not convert me means you don’t want to share your opinion, then that’s your choice. I make no demands of you.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Just because something is objectively true doesn’t mean that we must, by necessity, believe it. People refuse to believe the truth about a variety of things all the time, either because they’re afraid of the truth or because they would prefer that something else be true instead.

Oh yes indeed.

 

[Moonstruck888]

If you disagree; please wheel out your time-manipulator… In the absence of some demonstration of the malliability of time – You’re spouting unverified and unexamined pseudoscientific nonsense - the irony of which is not lost on me.

Lord, you have delivered this uneducated upstart into my hands.

The Hafele–Keating experiment, 1971.

My time manipulator is a commercial airliner, which manipulated time in accordance with current theoretical predictions.

 

[JohnDamian]

Lord, you have delivered this uneducated upstart into my hands.

The Hafele–Keating experiment, 1971.

My time manipulator is a commercial airliner, which manipulated time in accordance with current theoretical predictions.

A.G. Kelly- Monograph No 3, Inst. Engrs. Irel (1996)
L. Essen- Creation Res. Society Quarterly Vol 14, 46 (1977)

You are not up to date my dear Moonstruck; I may be an “uneducated upstart” but at least my studying did not stop the second I stepped out of academia.

 

[Moonstruck888]

A.G. Kelly- Monograph No 3, Inst. Engrs. Irel (1996)
L. Essen- Creation Res. Society Quarterly Vol 14, 46 (1977)

You are not up to date my dear Moonstruck; I may be an “uneducated upstart” but at least my studying did not stop the second I stepped out of academia.

Please tell me that this is some kind of misguided attempt at humour…

I’ll take the accuracy of an atomic clock over the ramblings of a bampot anytime. This rubbish is on a par with the alien conspiracy theories about extraterrestrials being kept in a hangar in Nebraska…

Anti Relativity. Pathetic!

 

[JohnDamian]

Please tell me that this is some kind of misguided attempt at humour…

I’ll take the accuracy of an atomic clock over the ramblings of a bampot anytime. This rubbish is on a par with the alien conspiracy theories about extraterrestrials being kept in a hangar in Nebraska…

Anti Relativity. Pathetic!

I must say; you are hardly being charitable.

Demonstrating varience in time is not the same as demonstrating malliability. Presupposing causality for varience also requires evidence.

You are distracting from the claim I made earlier; you demonstrated no time-manipulation; even if I were to accept time varience. You commit an Equivocal fallacy; go back to Aristole; don’t pass Go; don’t collect your high school diploma. (Now that was an attempt at humour)