Why you should think that the First-Cause has to be an Intelligent Cause

[STT]

That is general belief. Infinite density at the BB point means the infinite curvature for space-time.

 

[AlNg]

That is general belief. Infinite density at the BB point means the infinite curvature for space-time.

The density may have been large, but I don’t see any evidence that it was infinite.

 

[STT]

The density may have been large, but I don’t see any evidence that it was infinite.

Then I have to argue that the size of the universe is infinite. Could we agree on that?

 

[AlNg]

Then I have to argue that the size of the universe is infinite. Could we agree on that?

I don’t see any evidence that the size of the universe is infinite. What I have read suggests that the universe is large, but finite in extent. However, because of the first law of thermodynamics, I would say that it has existed (as a finite entity) from all time. At least that is what seems to be true from the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[STT]

I don’t see any evidence that the size of the universe is infinite. What I have read suggests that the universe is large, but finite in extent. However, because of the first law of thermodynamics, I would say that it has existed (as a finite entity) from all time. At least that is what seems to be true from the first law of thermodynamics.

Let’s accept that the universe is finite. This means that there is something that bound the universe. Let’s call this A. A is either finite or infinite. We fall in trap infinite regress if we accept that A is finite. This means that the size of universe+ all things which bound the universe is infinite. Considering that A is infinite means that the universe+A is infinite. We can of course call universe+A as universe.

 

[Gorgias]

If you are explaining a concept to a class, is it better to explain it in a consistent, clear and precise manner that is not contradictory, or is it better to confuse the class by contradicting yourself and contradicting your own explanation?

It depends. If you use poetry and other literary forms as the means by which you explain things, then using allegories and figures of speech are to be expected, as well as the necessity of adopting particular interpretative frameworks.

 

[AlNg]

Let’s accept that the universe is finite. This means that there is something that bound the universe.

Not necessarily. The universe can be finite but without a boundary.

We fall in trap infinite regress if we accept that A is finite.

There is no infinite regress here. At least I don’t see it.

 

[AlNg]

It depends. If you use poetry

Oh OK. So religious knowledge and philosophy are to be thought of as poetry? Some of the great literary myths and fairy tales were written in a poetic form.

 

[STT]

Not necessarily. The universe can be finite but without a boundary.

No, it is necessary whether the universe is closed or open.

There is no infinite regress here. At least I don’t see it.

Consider the universe and A as the new universe. If the new universe is bounded then you need another thing B which bound the universe and A. Etc.

 

[Gorgias]

So religious knowledge and philosophy are to be thought of as poetry?

No – the other way around.

In some parts of the Bible, poetry is used in order to discuss God’s revelation.

Some of the great literary myths and fairy tales were written in a poetic form.

Wait – you’re seriously going with the converse, here? (Hey – if the statement “if it is raining, then the ground is wet” is true, that doesn’t imply that “if the ground is wet, then it is raining.” In the same way, “religious truth can be expressed through poetry” doesn’t imply “all poetic expressions reveal religious truth”.)

 

[AlNg]

Wait – you’re seriously going with the converse, here? (Hey – if the statement “if it is raining, then the ground is wet” is true, that doesn’t imply that “if the ground is wet, then it is raining.” In the same way, “religious truth can be expressed through poetry” doesn’t imply “all poetic expressions reveal religious truth”.)

Well that was the original question wasn’t it? Is it better to present your argument in a consistent, clear, precise and logical manner or is it better to present a confusing, contradictory and illogical argument. You said that it depends because of the necessity of adopting particular interpretative frameworks. So I am taking your advice seriously and presenting the argument in an illogical and contradictory manner.

 

[Gorgias]

So I am taking your advice seriously and presenting the argument in an illogical and contradictory manner.

Nah… you would only be taking my advice if you presented it in the form of a haiku…