Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The weird thing about Vizio's "argument" is that even if we accept that something created the universe, it does not follow that the supposed "creator" is some human-like guy.
The "creator" can just as easily be natural processes. Or it can be a Rainbow Unicorn. Although there is much more evidence for the former.
Exactly, no model suggests that the 'universe' did not have a cause. The question is what are the conditions that caused it prior to the planck-length - and there are plenty of models that give us explanatory power - unlike 'God dun it'. He keeps thinking that just because something is not explained that this necessitates the God explanantion - and then does not explain how God dun it. Oh Vey! He also keeps erecting the strawman that there is some view out there that suggests that the universe came into existence without a cause and demands that we explain it.
He is one of the worst tools I have seen - not even chritian apologists will stand with him is his illogical world.
This is the disingenuous game played by atheists to pretend their irrational and unsupportable premise of "No God" is the scientific one. The reality is quite the opposite. As we learn " new things day after day, year after year". . . the scope of our KNOWLEDGE OF God increases. Our understanding of God expands every time we discover, learn and understand what science has discovered. It is the Luddite religious leaders who have stagnated our knowledge of God to the ignorance of our ancient ancestors and called it Faith. It is their sins (pride, hubris, arrogance, lust for power and greed) that have been the main stumbling blocks to understanding our God. They have repeatedly over the centuries refused to follow Christ's admonishment to NOT "put new wine in old wineskins." They have continued to proclaim the "old wineskins" and have forced each new generation to fit.
You know, I'll give you shoulder. I like what you say. It is good. And I am dead serious. Though we may not be sharing same beliefs to full extant, but I do support you.
Maybe not the best parable, but Lord Buddha said once: It is good to have a friend on your path, but if you can not find one, then you go on it by yourself, like a mighty elephant prowling through the jungle.
I'd add - and not paying attention to the jungle noise.
We have an antonymic pair. There is either a creator, or there isn't. We know from the Law of Cause and Effect that something cannot exist without a cause. Therefore, your idea of no creator is not possible. The only alternative is that there is one.
What you refer to as a "creator" doesn't have to be an intelligent or even conscious being. The "creator" or cause, can be a natural process or thing. So sure, most people would agree that things are caused by other things. Big whoop!
What you refer to as a "creator" doesn't have to be an intelligent or even conscious being. The "creator" or cause, can be a natural process or thing. So sure, most people would agree that things are caused by other things. Big whoop!
Nope. Necessary and sufficient cause disproves the unintelligent or natural cause.
n order for something to bring about an effect, it must have the necessary and sufficient conditions. Let me illustrate. Let's say I want to move a small boulder. It is too big for me to move without a lever. Therefore, I apply a lever to the rock and move it. The necessary conditions to move the rock are 1) my existence, 2) the existence of the rock, 3) a lever, and 4) a fulcrum (something the lever must press against). The sufficient condition is that I must have enough strength. Therefore, when the necessary and sufficient conditions are met, the rock can be moved. But, I am a personal being and I must decide to apply the lever to move the rock.
In the case of an impersonal cause of the universe, there must have been necessary and sufficient conditions that brought the universe into existence. But, the question is if the pre-existence stuff that brought the universe into existence had the necessary and sufficient conditions, then it would automatically have brought the universe into existence. In the case of the lever and boulder illustration, if a "necessary rock" of "sufficient weight" were placed on the end of the lever, it would spontaneously move the boulder. When impersonal conditions that are both necessary and sufficient exist, the result is automatic.
If the necessary and sufficient conditions that brought the universe into existence were impersonal, then the universe would have been spontaneously formed an infinite amount of time ago -- since the necessary and sufficient conditions would have existed for eternity. If the universe was brought into existence an infinitely long time ago, there would be no usable energy left in the universe (entropy). But since there is usable energy left in the universe, the universe is not infinitely old. Because the universe is not infinitely old, the theory that an impersonal cause that is both necessary and sufficient brought the universe into existence cannot work.
It would seem more logical to say that since the universe is not infinitely old, that there must have been a personal cause that brought it into existence.
n order for something to bring about an effect, it must have the necessary and sufficient conditions. Let me illustrate. Let's say I want to move a small boulder. It is too big for me to move without a lever. Therefore, I apply a lever to the rock and move it. The necessary conditions to move the rock are 1) my existence, 2) the existence of the rock, 3) a lever, and 4) a fulcrum (something the lever must press against). The sufficient condition is that I must have enough strength. Therefore, when the necessary and sufficient conditions are met, the rock can be moved. But, I am a personal being and I must decide to apply the lever to move the rock.
Yes, simple physics works.
Quote:
In the case of an impersonal cause of the universe, there must have been necessary and sufficient conditions that brought the universe into existence. But, the question is if the pre-existence stuff that brought the universe into existence had the necessary and sufficient conditions, then it would automatically have brought the universe into existence. In the case of the lever and boulder illustration, if a "necessary rock" of "sufficient weight" were placed on the end of the lever, it would spontaneously move the boulder. When impersonal conditions that are both necessary and sufficient exist, the result is automatic.
This seems correct as well.
Quote:
If the necessary and sufficient conditions that brought the universe into existence were impersonal, then the universe would have been spontaneously formed an infinite amount of time ago -- since the necessary and sufficient conditions would have existed for eternity.
This is calling for an assumption that the "stuff" (energy) that formed the universe was static and had never changed...An assumption that cannot be relied on to be true...
Quote:
If the universe was brought into existence an infinitely long time ago, there would be no usable energy left in the universe (entropy). But since there is usable energy left in the universe, the universe is not infinitely old. Because the universe is not infinitely old, the theory that an impersonal cause that is both necessary and sufficient brought the universe into existence cannot work.
If the assumption made on your apologetic site is untrue, as it has to be because the universe has not lost it's energy or mass...You do know that energy and mass are the same thing in different forms, right?
Quote:
It would seem more logical to say that since the universe is not infinitely old, that there must have been a personal cause that brought it into existence.
Shiloh1 Boy, you sure are ignorant! Who said the universe came into existent without a cause? Oh and by the way why don't you try answering some of the questions put to you instead of deflecting with strawmen.
You have got nothing!
Still waiting for you to stop building your strawman and answer some of the questions posed to you instead of acting like everyone else owes you something in this monologue of yours - I thought this was a place for dialogue.
What new option? There is much evidence for the big bang theory, but the jury is still out....The Static universe Theory is another, but it is been pretty much been disproven....The truth of the matter is that nobody knows for sure...Why do you have such difficulty saying "I don't know"?
What new option? There is much evidence for the big bang theory, but the jury is still out....The Static universe Theory is another, but it is been pretty much been disproven....The truth of the matter is that nobody knows for sure...Why do you have such difficulty saying "I don't know"?
It was either caused, or not. We know it could not have been uncaused. The elimination of 1 side of an antonymic pair necessitates that the other side is valid.
Of course, you will never accept that...I realize that. Your "science of the gaps" requires you to deny it.
It was either caused, or not. We know it could not have been uncaused. The elimination of 1 side of an antonymic pair necessitates that the other side is valid.
Of course, you will never accept that...I realize that. Your "science of the gaps" requires you to deny it.
Your antonymic pair holds no water, as both have to be valid options...(EG Sam is dead vs Sam is alive)....Your genesis option is not valid...I could just as easily claim that superman made the universe by flying in ever widening circles at 100 times the speed of light...You do not know how it came about, nor do I.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
