To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 22449
22448  |  22450
Subject: 
Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:08:08 GMT
Viewed: 
936 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
  
   After all, the universe is not a thing--it is the set of all things (just the set of all numbers is not itself a number). To this end, the positing of God creates an extraneous step (and a big one); if the universe can in some way have created itself or could always have existed, then no God is needed.

My point is that if you hold that the universe always existed, that is a faith statement as much as any about God having always existed.

But the key difference is that I am saying “I accept that the universe may always have existed,” rather than “I believe that God has always existed.” I offer and accept the universe’s existence as a possibility, but I don’t put faith in that assertion the way theists put faith in God’s existence.

Okay, you are toying with me, but to be honest, you have to start somewhere to logically explain stuff. At the beginning of any one of those theories must be faith, because something from nothing is not scientific.

  
  
   Also, if God is the only thing that didn’t “begin to exist,” then to say that “all things that began to exist had a cause” is circular (and also special pleading (a double standard)), since it says “all things except God had a cause.” On the other hand, if there’s something else that didn’t “begin to exist,” then that thing was by definition not created by God and is thus not beholden to God; therefore, God would not be infinite or omnipotent.

I think that the entity of God by definition would qualify as relevently different from the universe as an entity, and therefore not special pleading.

But that’s just the ontological argument for God, and it’s a fallacy. And it’s special pleading because you’re saying that we’re not allowed to engage your cosmogonical theory on the same terms as any other theory. Simply declaring outright that something is unique is the same as assuming that something is unique, and, since that’s the essence of the argument, your argument is circular.

The problem is that concept of God cannot be explained logically; it is beyond logic. Faith.

  
   So, either: A) God is the only thing that didn’t have a cause (using the Principle of Relevant Difference) and He created the universe, or

Again, this point must be rejected as I describe above. Further, even if God always existed, there’s no reason to think that He created the universe. He may have found it, for example, or he may have created a freewilled entity who in turn created the universe. Your origin model requires many more leaps of faith (and gigantic leaps, at that) than the more parsimonious scientific model.

   B) The universe didn’t have a cause, it always existed.

Or C) The universe had a cause unknowable to us. This is not a statement of faith, since it is not a statement of faith to identify the limits of knowledge. It would be faith if I said “we can never, in principle, know the cause of the universe, so I therefore believe that it was caused by (insert cause here).”

Or D) The universe caused itself through processes unknowable to us. This is also not a statement of faith.

Or E) The universe was caused by something currently unknown to us but which we may eventually know, even if that cause is the universe itself. This is likewise not a statement of faith.

And there are many, many other options.

But they are all disingenuous at their core, because they cannot scientifically explain the sudden appearance of stuff. The notion that Science may one day explain what we all know is by definition unexplainable is dishonest.

JOHN



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
 
I missed this post in all the commotion, so I didn't reply earlier. My apologies to John for the delay. (...) What's unscientific about it, exactly? Thermodymanics allows for "something from nothing" as long as the net effect is zero. Quantum vacuum (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
 
(...) But the key difference is that I am saying "I accept that the universe may always have existed," rather than "I believe that God has always existed." I offer and accept the universe's existence as a possibility, but I don't put faith in that (...) (21 years ago, 16-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR