hahn:


Now how is that trolling?

The concept of a creator is illogical because the people who came up with such assumption have failed to provide any proof of any sort to support their claims.

Unless we are talking about a created that loves playing hide and seek

Christ

JeromeBlack:



What an abuse of reasoning.


What if Proposition #1 is true?


I believe in the eternal existence. My reasoning is that there will always be something in the future (even when our sun dies out and blows up everything in our galaxy thousands of years from now) why couldnt it be that there has always been something in the past?


There are scientists that are working with a theory of a cyclical universe in which there is constant creation and destruction

If you understand that the universe is currently running out of usable energy, then you'd know that proposition 1 cannot be true. For if the universe has always been here, then it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago.

But even more than that, physicists now agree that the universe had a beginning. Even theories of "multiverses" and cyclic "universes "cannot be extended indefinitely into the past. A beginning must necessarily occur at one point.

johnydon22:


You are basing your premise on the assumption that self existent which means independence of any other or lack of cause to connote sentient.

Self existent means something is without cause or require external influence doesn't mean sentient.

So, i am to counter a derived from your own assumed meaning of the concept of self existence

When something is self-existing, it means that it exists because it exists. There is no cause or external explanation for its existence. This implies a will. Because if we who are contingent alter our state of existence as we please, then the Cause of all existence must of necessity be able to govern its own existence as it pleases. It cannot be insentient.

Ihedinobi3:

When something is self-existing, it means that it exists because it exists. There is no cause or external explanation for its existence. This implies a will.

No. It doesn't imply will, that is the assumption on your part.

Because if we who are contingent alter our state of existence as we please, then the Cause of all existence must of necessity be able to govern its own existence as it pleases. It cannot be insentient.

As i said before, you are assuming the nature of this cause, you are assuming it must be sentient to be uncaused.

DoctorAlien:


If you understand that the universe is currently running out of usable energy, then you'd know that proposition 1 cannot be true. For if the universe has always been here, then it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago.

Uuuhm, no, not if it is a self-contained system.

But even more than that, physicists now agree that the universe had a beginning. Even theories of "multiverses" and cyclic "universes "cannot be extended indefinitely into the past. A beginning must necessarily occur at one point.

So, do you agree with everything physicists say or only when it suits your argument?

Because there are several other things they say in the pravailing cosmological model that you most likely do not believe or agree with.

johnydon22:
No. It doesn't imply will, that is the assumption on your part.

As i said before, you are assuming the nature of this cause, you are assuming it must be sentient to be uncaused.

How does it not imply will? In what way can a thing self-exist, that is, it is not only uncaused but it is also unaffected by any cause and it also created the Universe ex nihilo, and still be insentient? Why is this assumption unnecessary or incorrect?

Good to see you, DoctorAlien. Have you been well?

johnydon22:
Uuuhm, no, not if it is a self-contained system.

So, do you agree with everything physicists say or only when it suits your argument?

Because there are several other things they say in the pravailing cosmological model that you most likely do not believe or agree with.

what is this self-contained system?

Ihedinobi3:
Good to see you, DoctorAlien. Have you been well?

Yes brother. Good to see you too. Hope you've been well too.

DoctorAlien:
what is this self-contained system?

It's basically self explanatory. A closed system without external influence.

johnydon22:


It's basically self explanatory. A closed system without external influence.

I'm sorry but how does this relate to the unarguable fact that the universe right now is running of usable energy, and thus could not have been here since forever, or else it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago?

DoctorAlien:


If you understand that the universe is currently running out of usable energy, then you'd know that proposition 1 cannot be true. For if the universe has always been here, then it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago.

But even more than that, physicists now agree that the universe had a beginning. Even theories of "multiverses" and cyclic "universes "cannot be extended indefinitely into the past. A beginning must necessarily occur at one point.

LIES!

Our universe has a beginning if only you assume that the big bang is a beginning.

Also, note that the usable energy is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. There will always be energy just not the ones useful to humans. Remember that humans are less than 0.01% of the universe.

DoctorAlien:


Yes brother. Good to see you too. Hope you've been well too.

I have been, thank you, my brother.

JeromeBlack:


Yes, he even created the cross and the nail that were used to destroy him.

A very vision-less creator

He created the well fed empty headed negro atheists too

Ihedinobi3:

Stability is fundamental to eternity. If something goes through a cycle of degradation and renewal, the question does arise: "how is that possible?"

Degradation results from failure due to the pressure of external forces. Renewal results from the same. That a thing degrades its own self makes no sense. That it renews itself after degradation makes even less sense.

On the other hand, that a thing is in a constant state of perfection makes sense if that thing is not of this Universe at all and transcends everything in existence.

Stability is not fundamental to eternity in this case. What we are talking about is the existence of energy. Energy has different forms and will always exist in one form or another.....for eternity.

There will always be something. Why can't it also be that there has always been something. Infinite future? Then why not infinite past!


You have not even gotten to half of our known universe, yet you are arguing for a being that is out of this universe. nonsense.

MrPresident1:


He created the well fed empty headed negro atheists too

He also created his mindless christian zombies.

Note that Jesus too was a zombie that came back from the dead.

JeromeBlack:



LIES!

Our universe has a beginning if only you assume that the big bang is a beginning.

Also, note that the usable energy is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. There will always be energy just not the ones useful to humans. Remember that humans are less than 0.01% of the universe.

When it is said that the universe had a beginning, it is meant that there was a time when the universe (matter/energy, space and time) began to exist. They were not formerly in existence. If there was a time when the universe(the totality of everything) began to exist, how is that not a beginning?

JeromeBlack:


He also created his mindless christian zombies.

Note that Jesus too was a zombie that came back from the dead.

You are right o, he created everything including the well fed walking talking brain dead negro atheists

JeromeBlack:



Stability is not fundamental to eternity in this case. What we are talking about is the existence of energy. Energy has different forms and will always exist in one form or another.....for eternity.

There will always be something. Why can't it also be that there has always been something. Infinite future? Then why not infinite past!


You have not even gotten to half of our known universe, yet you are arguing for a being that is out of this universe. nonsense.

Of course there will always be something and there has always been something. I just don't see any sensible reason to believe that that thing is the physical universe. The physical universe clearly decays. There is no argument about that. That means that, say what you will about energy, it is destined to decay in perpetuity barring some intervention of an external factor that must of necessity be greater than itself.

Thus, the physical universe does not self-exist. Something else made it. And it is that something else that sustains it and that can renew it or perpetuate it.

As for looking for something outside the Universe when I don't know everything there is to know about the universe, that is neither here nor there. There is no reason at all to consider the Universe self-existing. That, of necessity, points to some cause outside the Universe itself.

MrPresident1:


You are right o, he created everything including the well fed walking talking brain dead negro atheists

Don't forget shameless mongers of failed prophecies

hahn:


Don't forget shameless mongers of failed prophecies

Yes o, he created everything including all the well fed walking talking zombie atheists

DoctorAlien:


When it is said that the universe had a beginning, it is meant that there was a time when the universe (matter/energy, space and time) began to exist. They were not formerly in existence. If there was a time when the universe(the totality of everything) began to exist, how is that not a beginning?

You do realise that time is an abstract contstruct? Matter, space and energy have no bearing on time. Time exists metaphysically without the constraint of materiality.


Just sit down and think of the paradox you just put yourself into. You said that there was no time before the big bang. But mathematically that is nonsensical-

If Time at the big bang is represented by T
If Time 1 hour after the big bang is represented by T+1
Then, we have to ask about what happened at T-1 (1 hour before the big bang)


A simple question of causality can also illustrate the point- WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG? If something caused the big bang, then it must have happened before the big bang.

MrPresident1:


Yes o, he created everything including all the well fed walking talking zombie atheists

And all the impoverished and sick theists that believe in it and keeping repeating the same prayers but are still poor, hungry and die from simple diseases it cannot cure daily

hahn:


And all the impoverished and sick theists that believe in it and keeping repeating the same prayers but are still poor, hungry and die from simple diseases it cannot cure daily

Yes o, including all the greedy hyenaic supporters of perversion and allthings degrading and debasing who masquerade themselves as Negro atheists

Ihedinobi3:

Of course there will always be something and there has always be something. I just don't see any sensible reason to believe that that thing is the physical universe. The physical universe clearly decays. There is no argument about that. That means that, say what you will about energy, it is destined to decay in perpetuity barring some intervention of an external factor that must of necessity be greater than itself.

Thus, the physical universe does not self-exist. Something else made it. And it is that something else that sustains it and that can renew it or perpetuate it.

As for looking for something outside the Universe when I don't know everything there is to know about the universe, that is neither here nor there. There is no reason at all to consider the Universe self-existing. That, of necessity, points to some cause outside the Universe itself.

False! The physical universe will continue to exist forever. It may not be in the form we are used to now but it will exist.

You are assuming that something created the universe and sustains it. Even if that were true, it cannot be your God who is ignorant of science and cosmology.

The universe exists and that is all we know. So far, there has never been any cosmic evidence for your God and he/she has never helped us humans to understand the universe......therefore, I can only believe in the universe and not your nonentity of a God.

Ihedinobi3:

Although it is impossible that the Creator is other than sentient, the argument did not go so far as to address sentience at all.



God is a technical term in philosophy of religion. It does not necessarily refer to a particular identity. It is a title for anything which is self-existing and an ultimate reality/cause.

So, if anyone does not believe that a God exists, they necessarily believe that the Universe is causeless and self-existing (which means that it is God in that worldview).

Please can you show links to philosophy texts that define God as a thing that is self-existing and ultimate cause/reality?

DoctorAlien:


I'm sorry but how does this relate to the unarguable fact that the universe right now is running of usable energy, and thus could not have been here since forever, or else it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago?

Actually my counter is that an eternal universe is a self-contained system therefore wouldn't run out of energy since energy would not be lost.

So, if the universe is eternal then it is a closed system.

Ihedinobi3:

How does it not imply will? In what way can a thing self-exist, that is, it is not only uncaused but it is also unaffected by any cause and it also created the Universe ex nihilo, and still be insentient? Why is this assumption unnecessary or incorrect?

Again, the premise here is self- existent, you keep make logical leaps.

Something is self existent means it is uncaused and unaffected by external influence.

You jump gun and make a conclusion it implies will and sentience.

That is an unfounded assumption, probably typical to human propensity to anthropomorphication.

"The river wants to flow downhill"

You have to show how self-existence means sentient without making logical leaps and assumptions

Ihedinobi3:

Of course there will always be something and there has always be something. I just don't see any sensible reason to believe that that thing is the physical universe. The physical universe clearly decays. There is no argument about that. That means that, say what you will about energy, it is destined to decay in perpetuity barring some intervention of an external factor that must of necessity be greater than itself.

Thus, the physical universe does not self-exist. Something else made it. And it is that something else that sustains it and that can renew it or perpetuate it.

As for looking for something outside the Universe when I don't know everything there is to know about the universe, that is neither here nor there. There is no reason at all to consider the Universe self-existing. That, of necessity, points to some cause outside the Universe itself.

When you say the physical universe clearly decays, what do you mean?

Change?
Or
Diminish (in the sense it phases out of existence gradually)

Pray tell.

Ihedinobi3:

Of course there will always be something and there has always be something. I just don't see any sensible reason to believe that that thing is the physical universe. The physical universe clearly decays. There is no argument about that. That means that, say what you will about energy, it is destined to decay in perpetuity barring some intervention of an external factor that must of necessity be greater than itself.

Thus, the physical universe does not self-exist. Something else made it. And it is that something else that sustains it and that can renew it or perpetuate it.

As for looking for something outside the Universe when I don't know everything there is to know about the universe, that is neither here nor there. There is no reason at all to consider the Universe self-existing. That, of necessity, points to some cause outside the Universe itself.

Succinct!!

Ihedinobi3:

Stability is fundamental to eternity. If something goes through a cycle of degradation and renewal, the question does arise: "how is that possible?"

Another word play; what do you mean stability?

Unchangeability?
Order?

Degradation results from failure due to the pressure of external forces. Renewal results from the same. That a thing degrades its own self makes no sense. That it renews itself after degradation makes even less sense.

Let me introduce you to the cosmological oscillation model.

A contained system can be go through a cycle, in fact this is one of the possible end results of the present cosmological model.

If our universe is self- contained, with sufficient amount of gravitational force present, then a collapse of the system is inevitable and such collapse forms a singularity which as a raw form of energy will inevitably give rise to another inflation.

This is not me saying this is the case, this is show how a contained system can theoretically go through cycles without external influence

You seem to make bold assumptions as absolutes and base your argument on this.

On the other hand, that a thing is in a constant state of perfection makes sense if that thing is not of this Universe at all and transcends everything in existence.

Is this thing inexistent? Or is it still part of existence?

JeromeBlack:


You do realise that time is an abstract contstruct? Matter, space and energy have no bearing on time. Time exists metaphysically without the constraint of materiality.

Time is many things to many people. Surely time is not easy to deal with when origins arguments is brought on. But whatever, the case, there still has to be a beginning for time.

Just sit down and think of the paradox you just put yourself into. You said that there was no time before the big bang. But mathematically that is nonsensical-

If Time at the big bang is represented by T
If Time 1 hour after the big bang is represented by T+1
Then, we have to ask about what happened at T-1 (1 hour before the big bang)


A simple question of causality can also illustrate the point- WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG? If something caused the big bang, then it must have happened before the big bang.

There is a concept called Simultaneous Causation, and with that, the cause of time's beginning occurred when time began, i.e. cause and effect were simultaneous.