JeromeBlack:



Scientists can be wrong. And that is the opinion of one scientist.

who is this?

That is actually the opinion of many scientists, including Vilenkin and Hawking. Mind you, they're not Christians.

I would like to ask the Scientist what a state of maximum disorder looks like in a universe. By his very own argument, the big bang too should have resulted in a maximum state of disorder. Why would 2 big bangs be more disorderly than one big bang?

what do you think a state of maximum disorder means? It doesn't mean scatteredness, as in disordeliness. It means a state in which there is no more usable energy. The temperature of everywhere in the universe would be the same. No work can done in such a state because no energy is available for it.

UyiIredia:


Honestly, you didn't even more how the post had envisaged your response. But humour me please, define mental traits like love and logic as brain processes? They are brain processes, are they not so give me their definition in those terms.

I am not comfortable with a question as an answer to my question, especially one that kinda of veers off my initial question. If you would answer my question first then we can segue into other things.

JeromeBlack:



The only way to test how good their arguments are is to put them up for debate.

It is easy to talk in an echo chamber. Let them face hardened atheists with their arguments first

They constantly respond to questions and counterarguments from atheists all over the whole world. Check them out. Maybe you can send them your hardened atheist questions, and they'll respond to it.

UyiIredia:


Noted. It's like water cycle so it's reformed not created and destroyed but why do you deny an eternal cause is unchangable.

If something changes eternally something must make it change not so.

Change is a natural part of existence. The universe we know is expanding and changing. Energy itself cannot be destroyed, it is only converted.

DoctorAlien:
who is this?

That is actually the opinion of many scientists, including Vilenkin and Hawking. Mind you, they're not Christians.

what do you think a state of maximum disorder means? It doesn't mean scatteredness, as in disordeliness. It means a state in which there is no more usable energy. The temperature of everywhere in the universe would be the same. No work can done in such a state because no energy is available for it.

That is concrete bullshite. From what evidence/research/logic is that based on?

LordReed:


I am not comfortable with a question as an answer to my question, especially one that kinda of veers off my initial question. If you would answer my question first then we can segue into other things.

Nice swerve.

JeromeBlack:


That is concrete bullshite. From what evidence/research/logic is that based on?

Read the third paragraph of this Hawking's lecture: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

JeromeBlack:



Change is a natural part of existence. The universe we know is expanding and changing. Energy itself cannot be destroyed, it is only converted.

Okay.

UyiIredia:


Nice swerve.

The swerve is from you. You called my question simplistic but failed to provide a simple answer, instead you are asking me questions in return and say I am swerving. One finger points forward, 3 point backward.

No!

johnydon22:


This is the type of thing you like. To be regurgitating plain rubbish with MrPresident1

So person cannot play with him padi again abi?

UyiIredia:


SMH

SMD

hahn:


SMD

Na piss u piss? LMAO!

LordReed:


Na piss u piss? LMAO!

hahn:


So person cannot play with him padi again abi?

Hahaha i give up on you Hahn

hopefulLandlord:
No!

Ok. Why?

Evangkatsoulis:


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

you sent me a pm.

johnydon22:


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

My answer to this objection was not entirely correct.

It is not a leap of logic to assume sentience in self-existence.

Self-existence is not merely causeless existence and invulnerability to external influence. It is also existence by the object's own will. You may want to debate this and I understand if you do, but you should consider the question:

If something exists without cause, then how does it exist at all?

Ihedinobi3:

but you should consider the question:

If something exists without cause, then how does it exist at all?

The hypocrisy.

The problem here is that you have never related this question towards your own God.

JeromeBlack:



The hypocrisy.

The problem here is that you have never related this question towards your own God.

Why do you think that I haven't?

Ihedinobi3:

Why do you think that I haven't?

You believe in a christian God.

JeromeBlack:



You believe in a christian God.

So?

Ihedinobi3:

So?

Why are you acting as if you do not understand what I am saying.


Having an uncaused cause is an oxymoron. If you have truly considered this, you wouldnt believe in your god.

JeromeBlack:




Why are you acting as if you do not understand what I am saying.


Having an uncaused cause is an oxymoron. If you have truly considered this, you wouldnt believe in your god.

You'll have to wait until johnydon22 responds to see what I think of your alleged oxymoron.

Ihedinobi3:

You'll have to wait until johnydon22 responds to see what I think of your alleged oxymoron.

See dodging.

Were you a boxer in your previous life?

JeromeBlack:


See dodging.

Were you a boxer in your previous life?

Didn't have a previous life. And I'm not dodging.

You did claim that the Universe has always existed. How is that different from a causeless cause?

Ihedinobi3:

Didn't have a previous life. And I'm not dodging.

You did claim that the Universe has always existed. How is that different from a causeless cause?

Good question. In fact, I must commend you for asking the right question for once.

You have hit the nail on the flaw of the "cyclic universe theory"

If you accept the cyclic universe theory, then you must also accept that paradox that the universe created itself.


While it is a paradox, it is far more explainable than an uncaused God. The reasoning is that in the cyclic universe, the preceding universe is different from the new universe it creates. In short, our universe is caused by another universe.

Think of it like the chicken and the egg problem. This is another unsolvable paradox. A chicken gives birth to an egg but the chicken must come from an egg. What came first? It is an eternal cycle of universes coming in and out of existence.


The other difference between an eternal universe and an uncaused God is that we have evidence for a universe. Concrete and undeniable evidence for a universe. But we do not have a single shred of physical evidence for a God.

JeromeBlack:


Good question. In fact, I must commend you for asking the right question for once.

You have hit the nail on the flaw of the "cyclic universe theory"

If you accept the cyclic universe theory, then you must also accept that paradox that the universe created itself.


While it is a paradox, it is far more explainable than an uncaused God. The reasoning is that in the cyclic universe, the preceding universe is different from the new universe it creates. In short, our universe is caused by another universe.

Think of it like the chicken and the egg problem. This is another unsolvable paradox. A chicken gives birth to an egg but the chicken must come from an egg. What came first? It is an eternal cycle of universes coming in and out of existence.


The other difference between an eternal universe and an uncaused God is that we have evidence for a universe. Concrete and undeniable evidence for a universe. But we do not have a single shred of physical evidence for a God.

That was not a flaw at all because a final uncaused cause is a logical necessity for existence to make sense. Infinite regress is an impossibility.

That impossibility is another flaw in your cyclic model. Your model has universes in generations stretching into the infinite past with the question "how did it all start?" unanswered.

Further, your model assumes the possibility of change in a closed system. That is false. If the universe is all there is, it won't change at all, much less produce a new Universe and go out of existence.

Ihedinobi3:

That was not a flaw at all because a final uncaused cause is a logical necessity for existence to make sense. Infinite regress is an impossibility.

That impossibility is another flaw in your cyclic model. Your model has universes in generations stretching into the infinite past with the question "how did it all start?" unanswered.

Further, your model assumes the possibility of change in a closed system. That is false. If the universe is all there is, it won't change at all, much less produce a new Universe and go out of existence.

Nope. The answer lies in the details. The universe is not an uncaused cause if you recognize that the preceding causal universe is actually a different universe.

Remember the chicken and the egg? Think of the preceding universe as the chicken and the new universe as the egg.


What make you think that a universe is a closed system? I hope you know that classifying the universe as a closed system is meaningless as it is based only in theory. In reality, the observable universe is an open system.


Alas, we come to the very problem we have at the beginning- How did it all start? Because something else can still be responsible for the cyclic universes.

It is at this point that I am going to take a break. The philosophy is giving me headache


*runs away from thread*

JeromeBlack:



Nope. The answer lies in the details. The universe is not an uncaused cause if you recognize that the preceding causal universe is actually a different universe.

Remember the chicken and the egg? Think of the preceding universe as the chicken and the new universe as the egg.


What make you think that a universe is a closed system? I hope you know that classifying the universe as a closed system is meaningless as it is based only in theory. In reality, the observable universe is an open system.


Alas, we come to the very problem we have at the beginning- How did it all start? Because something else can still be responsible for the cyclic universes.

It is at this point that I am going to take a break. The philosophy is giving me headache


*runs away from thread*

I did not say that the universe is an uncaused cause. I said that an uncaused cause is a logical necessity. The problem is infinite regress which is what your model espouses. Infinite regress is nonsense because there must be an ultimate uncaused cause.

That is the first flaw in your model: infinite regress.

The second is the one that you have refuted by claiming that the universe is an open system. If it is an open system, then there is something else outside the Universe that interacts with it and causes change within it. Is that what you believe?

Ihedinobi3:

That was not a flaw at all because a final uncaused cause is a logical necessity for existence to make sense. Infinite regress is an impossibility.

Not impossible, just less logical from the human perspective.

I do not know how you absolutely conclude to know what is impossible or not in a vast array of existence that probably goes beyond our universe or even physical dimension

Stop making absolute statements on things you possibly couldn't know

johnydon22:
Not impossible, just less logical from the human perspective.

I do not know how you absolutely conclude to know what is impossible or not in a vast array of existence that probably goes beyond our universe or even physical dimension

Stop making absolute statements on things you possibly couldn't know

From what perspective could it be more logical?

Why do you say I couldn't possibly know?