The War on Religion

[tttppp]

I didn't say anything about history books. I said science cannot deal with history. Also, you must define what you mean by "finite" and "infinite". The very existence of natural laws implies that the universe, as far as we know and experience it, is finite.

Secondly, I would argue that the universe cannot be infinite. If you wanted to believe it was infinite, you would still have to explain how the first event came to be that brought all this into existence. It is a logical axiom and a philosophical truth that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Therefore, there had to have been an original cause.

The only real laws of the universe are zero equals infinity. The so called laws you see today can be broken.

In zero equals infinity, there is no beginning to the universe. Cause and effect is just another apparent law that you are falling for.

Addintionally, you are the one arguing for God being infinite, then you argue against infinity because I'm not using it to explain God. I'm sure if I was explaining God being infinite, you would have no problem with infinity.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Technically in infinity there are an infinite amount of Gods, none of which created the universe.

That is infinity without God, which is a completely different subject. I am saying that, if we assume there is an infinite, omnipotent and omnipresent God, then there can only be one such God.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If the universe is infinite, there was no event that created the universe, the universe always existed.

Additionally, if God is infinite, then our universe is part of infinity.

What is "part" of infinity?

Also, I would still argue that the universe cannot be infinite because everything that began to exist had to have a cause, meaning that there had to have been an original cause if we accep that there is a regression of causes that led to us being here. There is no such thing as an infinite regression of causes.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It seems you're also anthropomorphizing your God. Do you not see your own contradiction here?

No, explain.

 

[KingNothing]

That's not what I said and you know it. Also, you can't justify explaining something now by saying it could possibly be explained sometime in the future. That's fine, but you really shouldn't try to explain it until that time in the future when you can explain it comes. It is presumptive to say that if something might be explained in the future, then it can or should be believed now.

I'm not saying anything one way or another on this. Science can, at some point, prove that the Universe is infinite, or that the Bible, Koran and The Bhagavad Gita and every other holy book is nonsense, and that wouldn't prove anything one way or another. I choose to believe that the Universe itself is God, that because we are in the Universe, we are in God, and because the Universe is in us, God is in us. And I have a gut feeling that quantum mechanics will eventually push us further towards that belief....

Anyway, your posts seemed to imply that because science hasn't proven a thing to be true, that thing is not true, and that nothing can be proven, period. And that's why I posted the clip from Love and Death:

"But judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomena exists in any rational, metaphysical or epistemological contradiction to an abstracted empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself."

 

[PaulConventionWV]

"only one infinite" doesnt even make sense.

You have to define infinite. I am saying God is infinite in the sense that He has no end and no beginning. There is no point at which He began to exist because he is not influenced by time, space and matter like we are. I am not saying He is infinite in the sense that there is an infinite amount of one of Him. You are confusing two completely different definitions.

 

[tttppp]

What is "part" of infinity?

Also, I would still argue that the universe cannot be infinite because everything that began to exist had to have a cause, meaning that there had to have been an original cause if we accep that there is a regression of causes that led to us being here. There is no such thing as an infinite regression of causes.

I've already explained how the universe can be infinite. You haven't explained why the universe has to have your special rules to be infinite, but your God is not required to have these rules to be infinite.

 

[KingNothing]

I was simply pointing out the logical fallacy in assuming that God is material and therefore must be limited in the same ways the material universe is. Still nobody has answered how the first event came to be without a cause.

That isn't a logical fallacy. It's a set of beliefs you don't subscribe to.

And you kan't argue how phenomena came to be if they always were.

 

[KingNothing]

I didn't say anything about history books. I said science cannot deal with history. Also, you must define what you mean by "finite" and "infinite". The very existence of natural laws implies that the universe, as far as we know and experience it, is finite.

Secondly, I would argue that the universe cannot be infinite. If you wanted to believe it was infinite, you would still have to explain how the first event came to be that brought all this into existence. It is a logical axiom and a philosophical truth that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Therefore, there had to have been an original cause.

If it is infinite there is no first. You're mixing up many things here and repeatedly begging the question. You should sit down and sincerely think this stuff through before firing off posts filled with such certainty.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The only real laws of the universe are zero equals infinity. The so called laws you see today can be broken.

In zero equals infinity, there is no beginning to the universe. Cause and effect is just another apparent law that you are falling for.

Addintionally, you are the one arguing for God being infinite, then you argue against infinity because I'm not using it to explain God. I'm sure if I was explaining God being infinite, you would have no problem with infinity.

Cause and effect is logic. So what you are arguing is that there is no logic, only the arbitrary "law" that you made up. I bet you can't even explain in coherent terms what you mean by "zero equal infinity". If you can, please do because you have not at all made that clear. You seem to just expect us to believe it.

I am arguing that God is infinite. What I am disagreeing with you on is that the universe can be infinite in and of itself without an original cause or source. I am not saying you can't use infinity to explain things other than God. I am saying that the universe is not infinite because it must have come into existence somehow. Even if the universe itself did not come into existence, there must have been an original cause that led to it producing life as we know it.

 

[KingNothing]

What is "part" of infinity?

Also, I would still argue that the universe cannot be infinite because everything that began to exist had to have a cause, meaning that there had to have been an original cause if we accep that there is a regression of causes that led to us being here. There is no such thing as an infinite regression of causes.

Part of infinity? Well, if the digits of pi extend to infinity, 3.14 would be a "part" of that infinity. If the universe were to be infinite -and for what it's worth, I believe that if the universe were infinite, the implication would be that there are infinite number of other universes with differing initial conditions- PaulConventionWV at 10:19PM would be "part" of infinity.

Infinity is a difficult thing to grasp. If someone says that the universe always was, whether that means God or not (which doesn't really matter to me) then an initial event that caused everything that followed is not necessary.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm not saying anything one way or another on this. Science can, at some point, prove that the Universe is infinite, or that the Bible, Koran and The Bhagavad Gita and every other holy book is nonsense, and that wouldn't prove anything one way or another. I choose to believe that the Universe itself is God, that because we are in the Universe, we are in God, and because the Universe is in us, God is in us. And I have a gut feeling that quantum mechanics will eventually push us further towards that belief....

Anyway, your posts seemed to imply that because science hasn't proven a thing to be true, that thing is not true, and that nothing can be proven, period. And that's why I posted the clip from Love and Death:

"But judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomena exists in any rational, metaphysical or epistemological contradiction to an abstracted empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself."

Science only deals with the world as we experience it through our five senses. There is no amount of tests using "devices" composed of these same natural materials that we experience which could determine whether there was anything outside that natural realm in which we exist.

What I am saying is that we only need to use logic to figure out that the universe is finite. Everything that begins to exist had a cause.

Also, no, I am not implying that because science cannot prove something to be true that it is not true. What I am saying is that you cannot believe it to be true without a reason. As of yet, you have no reason to believe that the universe is infinite.

 

[matt0611]

Cause and effect is logic. So what you are arguing is that there is no logic, only the arbitrary "law" that you made up. I bet you can't even explain in coherent terms what you mean by "zero equal infinity". If you can, please do because you have not at all made that clear. You seem to just expect us to believe it.

I am arguing that God is infinite. What I am disagreeing with you on is that the universe can be infinite in and of itself without an original cause or source. I am not saying you can't use infinity to explain things other than God. I am saying that the universe is not infinite because it must have come into existence somehow. Even if the universe itself did not come into existence, there must have been an original cause that led to it producing life as we know it.

You're most likely just waisting your time. I've tried explaining it to tttppp before. He can't comprehend that God could be infinite with a finite universe for some strange reason.

I don't even know what he means by 0 = infinity and what he means by that the universe is infinite, infinite in its existence in time or in its volume or both?

I don't think there are even any scientists today that believe that the universe is infinite in either in time or space.

 

[KingNothing]

Science only deals with the world as we experience it through our five senses. There is no amount of tests using "devices" composed of these same natural materials that we experience which could determine whether there was anything outside that natural realm in which we exist.

What I am saying is that we only need to use logic to figure out that the universe is finite. Everything that begins to exist had a cause.

You're talking about a priori and a posteriori knowledge, and then you're begging the question that the Universe had a beginning. Even if one were to say that the Big Bang is the earliest measurable event, it would not necessarily imply that it was the event that started the universe, or multiverse.


You're not the first person to toss these ideas around. Cosmologists have made careers out of debating the possible scenarios regarding our Universe's beginning and end, and guys like Kant and Schopenhauer worked to make Epistemology an entire philosophical field.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I've already explained how the universe can be infinite. You haven't explained why the universe has to have your special rules to be infinite, but your God is not required to have these rules to be infinite.

You have explained nothing. I never specified any rules for the universe to be infinite. What I said was that anything that begins to exist has to have had a cause. If you demonstrate that that is not true, then I will concede that it is possible for the universe to be infinite without an initial cause.

All I am saying about God being infinite is that you cannot rule out God's existence. That was in response to a poster who implied that God had to be created, which implies that He is finite. If God is NOT finite (=infinite), then He did not have to have a creator.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That isn't a logical fallacy. It's a set of beliefs you don't subscribe to.

And you kan't argue how phenomena came to be if they always were.

It is fallacious to assume that God is material. The key word here is 'assume'. I am not arguing that something that always has been came to be in a certain way. That is something I simply have not even mentioned.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If it is infinite there is no first. You're mixing up many things here and repeatedly begging the question. You should sit down and sincerely think this stuff through before firing off posts filled with such certainty.

I will try to explain a little more clearly. I exist. I did not always exist. Therefore, I began to exist. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. If I began to exist, then I had a cause. If the thing that caused me to exist existed, then it also had a cause. Therefore, there must have been an original cause that led to me existing since there cannot be an infinite regression of causes.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Part of infinity? Well, if the digits of pi extend to infinity, 3.14 would be a "part" of that infinity. If the universe were to be infinite -and for what it's worth, I believe that if the universe were infinite, the implication would be that there are infinite number of other universes with differing initial conditions- PaulConventionWV at 10:19PM would be "part" of infinity.

Infinity is a difficult thing to grasp. If someone says that the universe always was, whether that means God or not (which doesn't really matter to me) then an initial event that caused everything that followed is not necessary.

What I am saying is that there must have been an initial event that caused everything because everything in this world has a cause that preceded it. Likewise, everything that preceded that cause must have also had a cause. Therefore, there had to have been an original cause.

 

[KingNothing]

I am not arguing that something that always has been came to be in a certain way. That is something I simply have not even mentioned.

No, but you have repeatedly said that the Universe must have a beginning. If someone says that the universe always has been, it did not come to be. It was. It never wasn't. That's the point. You're begging the question when you say that they're not correct because they can't cite its initial point.

 

[KingNothing]

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. If I began to exist, then I had a cause. If the thing that caused me to exist existed, then it also had a cause. Therefore, there must have been an original cause that led to me existing since there cannot be an infinite regression of causes.

This is all begging the question. Why must the universe be an effect following a cause?