G
guanophore
Guest
I think I am the one who derailed it, teasing about the Nephilim. By bad!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I think that’s the fallacy of composition.
R
rossum
Guest
Gravity is the curvature of space-time. If there is no reality, then there is no anything: no universe, no God, no heaven, no hell. The universe, gods, heavens and hells are all real.Gravity describes a relationship between real things. It’s occuring in reality. If there is no reality, it makes no sense to speak about gravity.
Why not? Space-time does not require beings to be present for it to exist. A space-time with no beings is perfectly possible.It makes no sense to speak about gravity without also talking about beings.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Then you are saying God is nonsensical. The cause of the current state of God is the immediately prior state of God. If God is eternal, then there is an infinite regress of states within God, each state being caused by the previous state.An Infinite regress of intermediate causes is nonsensical.
Are you telling us that God is “nonsensical”?
rossum
I
IWantGod
Guest
The Curvature of something. Space is not nothing; it’s a kind of being; it has a reality. Without space-time there is no such thing as gravity.Gravity is the curvature of space-time.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
Space is nothing. Worse, what did the Big Bang explode into? Nothing?
I
IWantGod
Guest
That’s not my idea of God. Is that a God that you believe in?The cause of the current state of God is the immediately prior state of God.
Nobody argued that eternity, as it applies to God, refers to an infinite regress of states. God is not a contingent being in a continuous state of becoming, progressing in time.If God is eternal, then there is an infinite regress of states within God,
No you are, but the God you are arguing against is a straw-man.Are you telling us that God is “nonsensical”?
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
That’s not God of Catholicism, whose essence (what you call “states”) cannot be separated from its existence. The two are one. With any finite entity, that is not true. You can discuss the characteristics of a tiger (essence) separate from the existence of a tiger (let’s hope).The cause of the current state of God is the immediately prior state of God. If God is eternal, then there is an infinite regress of states within God, each state being caused by the previous state.
Other reason that’s not God of Catholicism is something had to cause God to have those “states”, hence that God had to have a prior cause, which means its not God.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Accept in this case the universe is exactly what it is made of. The universe is not something that is separate from the changing and limited nature of space time; it is the space-time continuum. In-order for your fallacy to apply, the universe would have to be more than what it is comprised of,. You can imaging that it is, indulge in your wildest fantasy, but that is not reality. So the composition fallacy charge does not apply, since the universe is changing.I think that’s the fallacy of composition.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Not necessarily. It may be a multiverse, which might be several space-time continua. It might be a state of affairs consisting of an infinite series of BigBang-universe, BigBang-universe BigBang-universe occurrences, each with its own new space-time continuum.it is the space-time continuum
Even if it just us and the matter around us, whatever it is, it is a fallacy to pronounce that it must have the characteristics of what it contains.
I
IWantGod
Guest
It’s irrelevant, changing is changing. It’s all a part of the same physical reality.Not necessarily. It may be a multiverse,
I
IWantGod
Guest
Change…It might be a state of affairs consisting of an infinite series of BigBang-universe,
I
IWantGod
Guest
Change…BigBang-universe BigBang-universe occurrences
P
PickyPicky
Guest
It’s contents change.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Physical reality is space-time and whatever that contains. Anything else is just your imagination. An infinite regress of effects, however you imagine it, is not something that is necessarily actual, and it is not something we can say requires no cause…Even if it just us and the matter around us, whatever it is, it is a fallacy to pronounce that it must have the characteristics of what it contains.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Space-time changes. And even if it didn’t, it’s contents is intrinsic to the nature of the whole, It’s the same physical reality, which is precisely why such a thing is illogical.It’s contents change
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
No evidence supports that, whereas evidence does support single bigBang universe. Even Lawrence Krauss (leading athiest scientist, MIT Phd, cited in opposition of God argument) disagrees with you and says most likely is that universe had a beginning and there wasn’t infinite series of big bangs.It might be a state of affairs consisting of an infinite series of BigBang-universe, BigBang-universe BigBang-universe occurrences, each with its own new space-time continuum.
He is author of “A Universe from Nothing” and argues it is possible that the Universe came from “nothing”, meaning to refute Aquinas’ 5 ways argument that God was cause of the Universe. However, his definition of “nothing” isn’t nothing, as it includes quantum fields (not nothing) that produce particles when they achieve a certain state (kind of like how your fingers produce a fist when they reach a certain state - curled up). So clearly his thesis was false. The universe didn’t come from “nothing” - there are very specific “quantum states” that have particular values. Well who caused those quantum states to be present? Krauss doesn’t answer
Its ironic how much blind faith atheists will go to in order to justify …not believing in God that requires far less faith.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
I do not dispute that. I am disputing your assumption that a cause must be a ‘being’. Gravity exists and it causes massive object to fall. It is not a being.The Curvature of something. Space is not nothing; it’s a kind of being; it has a reality. Without space-time there is no such thing as gravity.
If you want to say that a specific cause is a being, then you have to provide more evidence.
rossum
I
IWantGod
Guest
But gravity does not exist without beings so what relevance does it have. If a being is contingent, if it is not necessary, if it is an actualized potential, It requires an actual cause, a being that is already real. You cannot suggest that gravity is the cause of physical reality and at the same time agree with me that without space-time there is no such thing as gravity. It’s a contradiction.Gravity exists and it causes massive object to fall. It is not a being.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
God changes: “I will part the sea for Moses” followed by “I will close the sea after Moses.”That’s not my idea of God. Is that a God that you believe in?
Are those changes random or are they caused? Is something other than God causing those changes or are they arbitrary and random? Theists will assert that those changes in God are caused and are caused by God Himself.
Hence, the causes can only be internal to God.
That gives us an infinite chain of internal causes within God, since God acts. His actions are changing, so He is changing. An unchanging God cannot act: “I am sorry Moses, I cannot part the sea for you today because I didn’t part it yesterday and I am unchanging so I cannot part it today.”
rossum
- Status
- Not open for further replies.