[The Phlegmy One!111]

Uh, yeh except no. Even if god exists, he doesn't 'control' the Earth. If he stopped existing, the Earth would carry on because of the way it is. So no. Also, that arguement makes no sense. What is necessary? God is necessary? Who says? You just made a fairly random statement that isn't justified.

[Echoes]

HolteEnder, on Jun 21 2006, 06:14 PM, said:

Ok, lets look at it this way. We are not necessary beings. we don't have to be on this earth. If you take that into context, what is the only thing that IS necessary. That thing is the one that controls the earth. That is God. He is necessary.

'the only thing that controls the earth' is more likely to be the law of physics...

Also, why are you so certain there had to be a start to everything (the universe, multiverse, whatever you want to call it)? Can you see it ending? If something doesn't have an end, why should it necessitate a start? By accepting that nothing created God, you seem perfectly at home with that concept - so why the double standards then?

Quote

If youre using the term logic as strictly as possible

I love this quote - 'logic' is perhaps the one term that can't be used loosely! A=B, B=C --> A=C!

[Dave. zzz....]

Who invented the law of physics?

[Droogie]

newton

[Droogie]

what god would say today;
http://www.saysgod.com/

[HolteEnder]

Im not doing a very good job of this

Things come into existence because something has caused them to happen. Things are caused to exist but they don't have to exist. There is a huge chain of causes that goes back to the beginning of time. And when time began, thats when the universe was created. There must have been one thing that triggered the creation of the universe. And this thing must have been necessary to cause a contingent universe. God is the only 'thing' that has a necessary existence. Therefore God has to be the first cause and therefore created the universe.

Aquinas had 5 ways to prove Gods existence, 3 of those were directly linked to this argument. One of them is motion. Whatever is moving atm had to be moved in the first place. This chain of movement can't go back to infinity. Therefore it has to have a Prime Mover. This prime mover is God.
The second is Cause, which basically is the same as the first one, but explaining how God must be an uncaused cause.
The 3rd way is that we are contingent. Tjings come into life and go into death. Therefore there has to be a time where nothing at all existed. The cause of the universe thereofre must be external and always have existed. There has to have been a necessary being to brinf all these things into existence. If God did not exist, neither would the niverse.

[The Phlegmy One!111]

You're using a completely fallacious arguement. Aquinas is studied only because his theory is interesting, not because it makes any logical sense. You say that everything must have a 'mover' yet can accept your god doesn't need one. Why can't the universe have always existed or the big bang be the mover. Who says that the big bang has to have a cause above it? Whatever your answer to that is, it can be applied back to god. Bradley's better at wording stuff, so wait for his reply :-P

[HolteEnder]

But God doesn't need a Prime Mover. He is a single entity that is ex nihilo, created out of nothing. How can the universe have always existed? It had to be created out of nothing. Everything has to have a cause. Except God. He is omnipotent.

[Droogie]

what is moving now didnt have to be moving in the first place. energy is what doesnt change - take a bomb for example. it has chemical energy but doesnt move, but when it explodes everything moves. same with the big bang.

what is the "beginning of time"? why can't the universe have always existed? are you saying that the universe will also at some point disappear?

[HolteEnder]

Yes. Once its fulfiled its function.

[Droogie]

what function would that be? and how can all matter just stop existing?

[HolteEnder]

I don't know.

[Droogie]

fair enough.. there is the possibility that it was all made by god and that someday it will all be erased by god.

BUT, there is NOTHING in the universe that suggests that this is the case. there is no reason why anyone should come to this conclusion. i'm not saying its impossible, but thinking that god is behind it all is completely irrational.

its just a theory thought by some person back our understanding of the universe was a miniscule fraction of what it is now. ok that guy was pretty imaginative, and his theory isnt bad considering how ignorant he was. but everything that we've discovered over the last thousands of years contradicts his theory and provides evidence for the other argument. why anyone should continue to believe the original theory is beyond me. its all blind faith, wishful thinking, unfounded confidence in a speculation.

[HolteEnder]

I'm not saying I specifically believe in Aquinas because i don't. His theory makes sense to me although yes, most of it now can be disproved. But he is the one that is the main contributor of the Cosmlogical Argument which I believe is right. In another Theory, Someone called William lane Craig states that if the universe didn't have a beginning then the past must consist of a series of events that is actually infinite. Actual infinity is in fact illogical.

[Droogie]

i don't see how infinite is illogical. theres no way the molecules that make up our universe can just be created out of nothing, or disappear and stop existing. THAT is illogical.

also, my previous post wasn't even in response to the aquinas thing, they were just my reasons why believing in god is irrational.

[HolteEnder]

Actual infinity is illogical because the actual infinite numbers cannot exist. Because whether you subtract or add to an actual infinite number it will always remain the same number. Infinity. An actual infinite wll always be complete. Thats why its illogical.

[Droogie]

well infinite isn't actually a number, it just means there is no end. so no you can't express the length of the universe as a number, in the same way that you can't express the length of the line y=x. that doesn't mean that the line y=x is illogical.

[HolteEnder]

But if you're saying the universe is infinite, then surely you're placing a number on that considering it is a timescale. y=x is a mathematical equation, the universe is a 'real' thing. Now we're straying into maths, which I know I'm going to fail.

[The Phlegmy One!111]

Yeh but isn't god inifnite and therefore illogical. KABOOM!

[HolteEnder]

God is infinite though.

This post has been edited by HolteEnder: 22 June 2006 - 01:31 PM