Your error is the conclusion that this implies a change in the creator. It does not, because by definition there is no potential to the uncaused cause - by its nature it is fully actualized, which is why it cannot change and so does not experience time. It is Action itself.Oh, come on. According to the theist picture, there was just the creator, dwelling in its realm. Then the act of creation took place, and then there was the creator, still dwelling in its realm, and also there was the brand new entity, our universe in its own realm. How can you say that there was no change? Originally there was one realm, after the creation there were two realms, both existing. If that is not a change, I don’t know what is. The point is that the creator acted. This action separated the creator’s realm into two segments, one when the creation did not take place yet, and another one, when the creation was complete. That fact introduces “time”, with all the corollaries I already described.
No. What is true is that God created mobile being, and thus, motion. Time measures motion; it came about due to the fact that creatures perceive motion and want to place measurements on it. We want to convert motion to measurable data.I’m not sure you understand my position or have read this thread thoroughly. I’m not arguing against a creator or non-physical reality.
Nevertheless, it’s still true that time was created, and that humans and everything physical are subject to it, in contrast to God. This is basic Catholic theology.
Based on our experience, yes, due to the finite speed limit at which information can travel in our universe. There is no logical reason, however, why creation by a transcendent, eternal being would require before and after.On the very contrary. These words are the necessary corollaries of an act.
No, I was just explaining why creating something doesn’t require time. I wasn’t arguing for the existence of God.You try to bring in God again into one of the premises, and also posit it as the end result. This is a logical fallacy - called question begging.
What you said right there is irrational. But that is not what happens when God creates.It is an irrational argument. Originally there was the creator, then an act of creation took place, and finally there was the creator and the creation - accrding to the cosmological argument, of course…
But your reasoning does not solve the problem of the infinite regress. To say that God is not allowed because He has attributes is to accept an hypothesis on credulity. The attributes of God do not disallow His inclusion into the argument but rather clarify why God should be in the argument.I did not say that it did. I only said that it is not necessary, since the Cathecism itself asserts that one can know God’s existence on fully rational grounds. For me this means without resorting to faith, that is on fully secular grounds, and that is precisely what the cosmological argument is supposed to do.
This is why I only speak of a “creator”, and an “act of creation”. The whole argument I presented is based on these two entites. If there is an act, then there is a change. If there is change, then there is time. If there is time, it either extends infinitely into the past, or it had a starting point. If it extended inifinitely into the past, we have the problem of traversing an infinity. If it had a starting point, then (by the cosmological argument) it needed an external cause and thus the process leads to an infinite regress. That is all.
There is no need to hypothesize about the possible attributes of the purported creator, before the existence of this creator has been established. Therefore to drag God into the question is not allowed, especially since God’s supposed existence is the awaited end point of this argument. It would be a logical error to introduce God’s attributes into one of the premises.
The discussion of evolution is banned, and it’s not germane to this thread.Moonstruck
*You should stick to physics 301, because Biology is clearly not your strong suit. There isn’t one lifeform on Earth that has been found to deviate from the nested set proposed by Darwin. Out of billions of lifeforms, not one…
Do you believe that could be a coincidence? *
This cannot be true. The source and fountainhead of all life, the first living and replicating creature, could not have arrived as a product of evolution. What could it have evolved from since there was no living matter before it?
Solid point.Moonstruck
*You should stick to physics 301, because Biology is clearly not your strong suit. There isn’t one lifeform on Earth that has been found to deviate from the nested set proposed by Darwin. Out of billions of lifeforms, not one…
Do you believe that could be a coincidence? *
This cannot be true. The source and fountainhead of all life, the first living and replicating creature, could not have arrived as a product of evolution. What could it have evolved from since there was no living matter before it?
Threads devoted to Darwinism are banned. Since evolution is a solid scientific reality, no arm of the modern Catholic Church will ban it. Ultimately, the Church seeks truth, following its founder.The discussion of evolution is banned, and it’s not germane to this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408684
My understanding of Einstein’s cosmological constant issue is that it comes under the category of,Einstein, who wanted the universe to be eternal and without cause, introduced the “cosmological constant” into his equations, thereby obtaining the result he wished to see. However, George LeMaitre corrected Einstein’s math. In a letter to LeMaitre admitting as much, Einstein said: “Since I have introduced this term I have always had a bad conscience.” (September 26, 1947)
Einstein goes on to say, in so many words, that he had violated Ockham’s Razor by introducing a needless element in to his equations that was a direct violation of their simplicity.
The entire scenario of Einstein versus LeMaitre is well documented in John Farrell’s The Day Without Yesterday, (2005).
Good point, solid argument, clear presentation. And you’re here, why? You must have a day job!Oh, come on. According to the theist picture, there was just the creator, dwelling in its realm. Then the act of creation took place, and then there was the creator, still dwelling in its realm, and also there was the brand new entity, our universe in its own realm. How can you say that there was no change? Originally there was one realm, after the creation there were two realms, both existing. If that is not a change, I don’t know what is. The point is that the creator acted. This action separated the creator’s realm into two segments, one when the creation did not take place yet, and another one, when the creation was complete. That fact introduces “time”, with all the corollaries I already described.
Why not consider the simpler possibility that I was born with a mind capable of distinguishing truth from nonsense, and developed a personality willing to put my best opinions out in the world, with the intention that they make a difference?greylorn,
It seems to me that somewhere along the way, on your journey through the pages of CAF, someone has deeply wounded you in some way. That is the only possible reason, that I can think of, that would make you so angry that you would make disparaging remark after disparaging remark toward Christianity, and especially the Catholic Church and her adherents herein. Not only do your remarks seem to be made in anger, but, it doesn’t appear that you care about your reputation while making them. Otherwise, you would seek the truth, and relate them to it
As you well know, many more Catholics (or, at least, Catholics-in-name-only), have been booted from CAF for being inhospitable toward atheists, Protestants and those of unknown religious persuasions than any other groups. Also, there is much less freedom for us Catholics than for other groups to give even the appearance on impropriety herein. I don’t know whom or what has offended you so, but, I will apologize for me, first, if I ever have, and my brothers and sisters, second, and hope it is not repeated.
God bless you,
jd
Do you really want to start another thread on this? The last one got closed because of the excessive anti-evolution rhetoric by the posts and the copious references to intelligent design.This cannot be true. The source and fountainhead of all life, the first living and replicating creature, could not have arrived as a product of evolution. What could it have evolved from since there was no living matter before it?
this really is a neat little argument. I’ve been trying to figure out a way to allow both the universe to have been eternal and for the Divine to still have a hand in creating it.Quite simply, there is the universe, and there is God. The universe requires God for its existence, and not the other way around. From God’s perspective, since he “simply is”, the act of creation is an eternal one. God is just as present at the beginning as he is 100 billion years in our future.
This is not a cheap argument. If there was nothing to change, then nothing changed. Simple. You can’t treat the concept of nothingness like it actually is something which changed.
If you wanted to stay on topic, why all the immature “man is so evil” stuff?Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and does not burn up. It does not have an end, and therefore energy does not have a beginning.
If God did not need time or matter, why did He create the junk?
You may have parked your truck in the wrong forum. This is supposedly about philosophy, not reiteration of dogma or the invention of your own physics.
This assumes a lot.Consider that no one has ever had to threaten or murder people to get them to recognize a better idea.
I did not say that the change occurs IN the creator, though it is inescapable. To talk about action without SOME kind of change is nonsense. What would differentiate action from non-action? And any kind of change will lead to the “before” and “after”, thus time.Your error is the conclusion that this implies a change in the creator.
By “definiton”? You cannot define the “creator”. We can say nothing about the creator, except that it acted once, when created the universe. Anything else is beyond the scope of the premises.It does not, because by definition there is no potential to the uncaused cause - by its nature it is fully actualized, which is why it cannot change and so does not experience time. It is Action itself.
Sure there is. An action without a change cannot be told apart from non-action. And so, action does lead logically to a before and an after.Based on our experience, yes, due to the finite speed limit at which information can travel in our universe. There is no logical reason, however, why creation by a transcendent, eternal being would require before and after.
But you cannot use God even as an example, before God is established.No, I was just explaining why creating something doesn’t require time. I wasn’t arguing for the existence of God.
That is the point in question. Cause-effect cannot circumvent the problem of “creation”, which presupposes an action, which in turn leads to time.It’s best to argue in the language that the universe requires something else in order for it to exist, or if you’re using cause-effect, then take into account that the universe is an eternal effect from the Creator’s point of view.
If a “generic” creator cannot be established, then the “specific” creator (God) cannot be established either.But your reasoning does not solve the problem of the infinite regress. To say that God is not allowed because He has attributes is to accept an hypothesis on credulity. The attributes of God do not disallow His inclusion into the argument but rather clarify why God should be in the argument.
There is nothing I “like” or “dislike”. The cosmological argument, or the first cause argument or any type of purely philosophical argument cannot include the existence of the Christian God, it cannot include theology. It can only assume a “generic” creator, of whom nothing else can be said, that it (not he) was the creator of the universe.You do not like the God hypothesis ad so you say it is disallowed, and I understand that. But the problem is that if the First Cause is removed from the cosmological argument then their arise more questions than answers. It is not that this deletion clears things up but rather it begins to beg the questions
If you mean that “eternal” is without beginning, then it does not follow. The universe did not come from anywhere, it simply exists. The universe can also be simply an uncaused, brute fact.If there is no First Cause then the universe must be eternal. And then we run headlong into quantifying time and action in an infinite continuum.
If the universe has a beginning, and did not create itself (because it could not be its own cause) then where does it come from?
I just might owe you an apology, Greylorn, but, not yet, and certainly not because anyone has given permission. But first! A few questions, since so many here like to cover up their blatancy by couching their remarks in innuendo and jargon (to get past the mods.). Is the following supposed to be a direct swipe at Catholicism?Why not consider the simpler possibility that I was born with a mind capable of distinguishing truth from nonsense, and developed a personality willing to put my best opinions out in the world, with the intention that they make a difference?
I do not welcome either fatuous pseudo-Christian “forgiveness” or personal analysis by someone who I’ve not gone hunting or dancing with. My mindset is only the business of the few with whom I’ve shared it. You have my permission to apologize.
And, how about this one?An honest Christian might ask how it came to be that Christ’s teachings needed to be preserved and enforced a few centuries later by the torture, degradation, and murder of Christians or anyone else.
And this one?But by the time of the Reformation and Inquisition, the Church had adopted policies and dogmas which departed from Christ’s original teachings, Intelligent men questioned these. Martin Luther did not have to torture people to acquire followers. Calvin’s adherents accepted his teachings on their merit, not because of coercion. Etc.
And this one seems to be aimed more at Western culture, particularly America, than the Church, perhaps.It has been suggested that the Church’s greatest shame was its threatening of Galileo. I regard it a greater shame that Copernicus withheld his ideas from publication until after his death, for fear of retribution from the Church he had served his entire life.
You’ll note that mathematical logic is universally accepted, around the world, and across all belief systems. 2+2=4 is not in disagreement in any ideology, and is as useful for illiterate fish mongers as for NASA rocket scientists.
What about this one?You’ll also note that physics is similarly accepted. While there is some inquiry at high levels about the implications of quantum mechanics, and other esoteric topics, these are most often conducted without thumbscrews or automatic weapons. You might also notice that our enemies (Islam, communism, etc.) employ the exact same laws of physics in the construction of their weaponry as we do. Nations living under absurd belief systems may compel the behavior and beliefs of their citizens by force, but seem content to have their engineers study Western physics.
The differences between religions and science have only to do with truth, and the inherent value of logic and honest evidence over belief. I submit that your premise is entirely incorrect, and that EVERYTHING has to do with the truth or falsity of religions, as with anything else.
And, is Catholicism targeted by this:If our religions were any good, they would all have followed Galileo out of the dark ages and into a world ruled by truth. By dragging their minds behind, they have lost all but the pretense of valid moral authority among educated people, having given it up to the atheistic principles which Darwinism inevitably fosters.
Of course, you well realize that the following is banned herein!Note that the kind of force which is keeping the concept of Intelligent Design out of your kids’ and grandkids’ textbooks, forcing them to learn Darwinism as truth, is the same coercive force used by various religions to promote their own beliefs.
If our religious beliefs were valid, they would not be struggling against such an illogical, irrelevant, and absurd belief system as Darwinism.
And you think that CAF has been “intimidated” by some “force?”Note that Darwinism has become such a powerful and intimidating force, that threads devoted to its discussion are banned from this Catholic site.
“The universe simply exists, therefore it needs no explanation” sounds a lot like the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion to me. It does nothing to address the question. All it does is seek to divert attention away from the question. It’s as fallacious as “The human race simply exists, therefore we need no explanation.” Or “The earth simply exists, therefore it needs no explanation.”If you mean that “eternal” is without beginning, then it does not follow. The universe did not come from anywhere, it simply exists. The universe can also be simply an uncaused, brute fact.