mandangalo18
New Member
this creationist told me he would be happy to educate me on science, theology, or philosophy if I was curious about these things. I took him up on the offer.
Mandangalo18-
I see you have some first cause arguments on your page, perhaps you'd like to enter your version of that one? And you're right, I give very little credence to arguments from personal experience.
I hope this discussion can shed some light for both of us. Before you begin, there's three prerequisites I have for these kind of discussions:
1) that you are willing to consider the possibility that you COULD be wrong. (this also applys to myself)
2) a comprehensive definition of the term "exist"
3) a comprehensive definition of the term "God"
Creationist-
Sound's good, as for condition 1) I am willing to not only consider but admit that my argument may be wrong, if it is logically flawed, if in the course of our discusstion you prove there is no God then i would have no choice but than to accept it.But i will let you know from the start that i doubt either of us will "prove" the existance or non-existance of a creator, as this is a disscusion that has been going on for hundred's of yr's, but seeing other ppl's perspective's and reason's for there belief's in different area's can be quite enlightening for both side's.
as for 2) and 3) go ahead with the definition's and start the ball rolling
Mandangalo18-
well, you will have to provide 2) and 3) as you are making the existential claim.
I will not at any time be arguing the position that God does not exist. I do not hold that position.
please enter the definitions, then advance the first cause argument.
Creationist-
Hey Mandan,
i just noticed that you said you wont be holding the position that God doesnt exist, if this is true why would i need to give a def of God and exist? Im not sure where to start, do you believe there is a God but that he didnt create everything? Just curious, as this would save alot of time knowing where you stand on the God you believe in would be helpful, my belief as a Christian is of course the same as the genesis account, my definition of God is omnipotent omnipresent eternal and then His character trait's Holy Righteous Good Kind Mercyful Patient and so on, def of exist is basical, somthing that is there as opposed to not there, something true.So if i understood you right you where more interested in the argument for creation in how God acheived it?
Mandangalo18-
I know of no reason to believe that God exists. If I knew a good reason to believe that a God exists, I would accept it. My logical state on this is "unknown".
Here is why you need to provide definitions:
All who advance positive existential claims carry the onus
You are advancing a positive existential claim
Ergo, the onus is on you
I need to know clearly what you mean when you say that "God" "exists". I cannot agree to to something without knowing exactly what it is that I am meant to agree to.
Once I am clear on what it is that I am meant to agree to, I will be eager to listen to your First Cause argument.
Creationist-
Ahhh okies so youre agnostic? Cool, i'll start with these def's
1) the existance of God being a creator and supreme being, omnipresent omnipotent eternal and real.
2)Exist's being something that is truely part of reality as opposed to not being, something that is there.
if these definitions are ok with ya, i can start with a first cause argument.
If you want me to be more specific just let me know.
Mandangalo18-
I accept your terms and we can operate on those, but I don't yet agree that God is a being that exists, at least not until I hear your argument.
Creationist-
Ok do you agree that the universe is not eternal? That it indeed had a beginning as almost all of the scientific community at present does?If so are you aware of the bigbang theory that leads us to what is called a sigularity? Which is really dealing with how it could be possible for matter to spring into existance from non-matter.This is the area that evolution and athieism run's into it's age old problem, which by default is a very good argument for a creator.Can you see the rather large problem with matter and laws coming from nothing? If everything sound's ok so far let me know and i'll continue, if you have any question's/objections let me know so i can work em out as we go if i can.
Mandangalo18-
I do not agree that the universe is not eternal. Why did it need to have a begining?
I have some laymans knowledge of Big Bang theory, which describes the expansion of the universe, leading temporaly backwards to a singularity of all mass/energy within null-dimensions. This theory does not describe, nor attempt to describe any sort of "creation" moment. It only describes the expansion of the Universe.
Creationist-
As far as i have researched the big bang theory is an origin argument, the big bang theory gets it's name from the point of singularity, if the definition of the theory has changed it is only because it was flawed. The very idea that all thing's in the known universe where squeezed into nothing (null-dimension's) naturalistically is absurd, there are no know laws to explain it and no logical or concievable model in which it is possible as far as i know outside of pure theory. The naturalistic veiw of everything coming from nothing is contrasted with creation, the Bible says from thousands of yrs ago that everything that was made was spoken into being, e.g. a supernatural singularity, a one time event which is for us non-observable, The main point here though is the eternality of the universe, most believe that the universe has a beginning, because we and the universe exist within the law's of time and space, if the universe was eternal it would have produced a heat death sometime in eternity past because of the second law of thermodynamics, this is one of the reasons almost all in this field have rejected a eternal universe, this is a little hard to unpack but you can look up info on this pretty easy.
Mandangalo18-
From my perspective Big Bang does not explain any first cause, only the expansion that occured. From your perspective Big Bang is absurd. I'm glad we are in agreement that Big Bang does not suitably explain any First Cause, and we won't have to discuss it anymore, since I think it's irrlevant, and you think it's absurd.
I disagree that naturalism states that everything came from nothing. That is a strawman of the naturalistic position. We can talk about that later though, for now it is irrelevant. The argument is about why you think God had to be a first casue; we're not talking about the veracity of naturalism just yet. An argument must stand on its own veracity; a persuasive existential argument cannot be contingent upon negation of a contrary view.
--you said:
"if the universe was eternal it would have produced a heat death sometime in eternity past because of the second law of thermodynamics"
If the Universe was eternal, it would necessarily and by definition be an OPEN system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applys only to CLOSED systems. It is invalid to apply this Law to any open system. I can't imagine astrophysicists fallaciously applying the Second Law and using the invalid conclusion as a reason to think the Universe had a beginning; science presupposes logic, and this reasoning is self-refuting.
Are there any other reasons to think that the Universe had a beginning?
Creationist-
Ok cool, looks like we found our first main topic, is the universe eternal, to tell ya the truth i didnt think this would be a problem needing explaining but is cool i will need to get some info for ya from outside reference's as i havent studied i depth this subject, i cant do much tonight but will try to get onto it by tommorow night.Just a few question's, do you believe that the laws we observe within our system do not apply everywhere in the universe? I would maintain there is a naturalistic system and a supernatural system the naturalistic system being a closed system (e.g the known unverse for the atheist) Im interested in your thought's of the univers being an open system.The reason i bring up naturalism is that really logically there are only 2 arguments either the universe is self creating or self sustaining and eternal, or the universe is the result of a supernatural act.And by disproving one does produce evidence for the other by proxy, since a supernatural event cannot be proven naturalistically we need to investigate the other option and see if it is flawed or not.
Mandangalo18-
I do not hold the position that the Universe is eternal. My logical state on this is "unknown".
I do not hold the position that the Universe is a closed system, nor do I hold the position that the Universe is an open system. My logical state on this is "unknown".
you asked: "do you believe that the laws we observe within our system do not apply everywhere in the universe?"
Through induction, I think it's very likely that Laws accurately describe without exception, everything that is observable.
you said: "[1]either the universe is self creating or [2]self sustaining and eternal, or [3]the universe is the result of a supernatural act" (I added the brackets to identify the options)
This is a false trichotomy. There is at least one other possibility (that I can think of). [4] That the Universe is uncaused commensurate with time, and finite.
Having the quality of being uncaused does not necessitate being eternal. Two of the options assume that the dimension of time existed before a moment of creation, as an act of creation by definition is a temporal proposition.
you said:
"And by disproving one does produce evidence for the other by proxy"
This is true within the system of classical logic when, and only when, two options are contradictorily opposed. That is, there cannot be any wiggle room between the two; the falsified option must exhaustively rule out every bit of the true option. If every possible extension is not exhaustively contradicted, then it is contrary opposition, not contradictory opposition. With contrary opposition, disproving one does not affirm the other. Since there are more than two options, and none of them exhausts the other options, this is a fallacious operation on the square of opposition.
more to come if he ever replys
Mandangalo18-
I see you have some first cause arguments on your page, perhaps you'd like to enter your version of that one? And you're right, I give very little credence to arguments from personal experience.
I hope this discussion can shed some light for both of us. Before you begin, there's three prerequisites I have for these kind of discussions:
1) that you are willing to consider the possibility that you COULD be wrong. (this also applys to myself)
2) a comprehensive definition of the term "exist"
3) a comprehensive definition of the term "God"
Creationist-
Sound's good, as for condition 1) I am willing to not only consider but admit that my argument may be wrong, if it is logically flawed, if in the course of our discusstion you prove there is no God then i would have no choice but than to accept it.But i will let you know from the start that i doubt either of us will "prove" the existance or non-existance of a creator, as this is a disscusion that has been going on for hundred's of yr's, but seeing other ppl's perspective's and reason's for there belief's in different area's can be quite enlightening for both side's.
as for 2) and 3) go ahead with the definition's and start the ball rolling
Mandangalo18-
well, you will have to provide 2) and 3) as you are making the existential claim.
I will not at any time be arguing the position that God does not exist. I do not hold that position.
please enter the definitions, then advance the first cause argument.
Creationist-
Hey Mandan,
i just noticed that you said you wont be holding the position that God doesnt exist, if this is true why would i need to give a def of God and exist? Im not sure where to start, do you believe there is a God but that he didnt create everything? Just curious, as this would save alot of time knowing where you stand on the God you believe in would be helpful, my belief as a Christian is of course the same as the genesis account, my definition of God is omnipotent omnipresent eternal and then His character trait's Holy Righteous Good Kind Mercyful Patient and so on, def of exist is basical, somthing that is there as opposed to not there, something true.So if i understood you right you where more interested in the argument for creation in how God acheived it?
Mandangalo18-
I know of no reason to believe that God exists. If I knew a good reason to believe that a God exists, I would accept it. My logical state on this is "unknown".
Here is why you need to provide definitions:
All who advance positive existential claims carry the onus
You are advancing a positive existential claim
Ergo, the onus is on you
I need to know clearly what you mean when you say that "God" "exists". I cannot agree to to something without knowing exactly what it is that I am meant to agree to.
Once I am clear on what it is that I am meant to agree to, I will be eager to listen to your First Cause argument.
Creationist-
Ahhh okies so youre agnostic? Cool, i'll start with these def's
1) the existance of God being a creator and supreme being, omnipresent omnipotent eternal and real.
2)Exist's being something that is truely part of reality as opposed to not being, something that is there.
if these definitions are ok with ya, i can start with a first cause argument.
If you want me to be more specific just let me know.
Mandangalo18-
I accept your terms and we can operate on those, but I don't yet agree that God is a being that exists, at least not until I hear your argument.
Creationist-
Ok do you agree that the universe is not eternal? That it indeed had a beginning as almost all of the scientific community at present does?If so are you aware of the bigbang theory that leads us to what is called a sigularity? Which is really dealing with how it could be possible for matter to spring into existance from non-matter.This is the area that evolution and athieism run's into it's age old problem, which by default is a very good argument for a creator.Can you see the rather large problem with matter and laws coming from nothing? If everything sound's ok so far let me know and i'll continue, if you have any question's/objections let me know so i can work em out as we go if i can.
Mandangalo18-
I do not agree that the universe is not eternal. Why did it need to have a begining?
I have some laymans knowledge of Big Bang theory, which describes the expansion of the universe, leading temporaly backwards to a singularity of all mass/energy within null-dimensions. This theory does not describe, nor attempt to describe any sort of "creation" moment. It only describes the expansion of the Universe.
Creationist-
As far as i have researched the big bang theory is an origin argument, the big bang theory gets it's name from the point of singularity, if the definition of the theory has changed it is only because it was flawed. The very idea that all thing's in the known universe where squeezed into nothing (null-dimension's) naturalistically is absurd, there are no know laws to explain it and no logical or concievable model in which it is possible as far as i know outside of pure theory. The naturalistic veiw of everything coming from nothing is contrasted with creation, the Bible says from thousands of yrs ago that everything that was made was spoken into being, e.g. a supernatural singularity, a one time event which is for us non-observable, The main point here though is the eternality of the universe, most believe that the universe has a beginning, because we and the universe exist within the law's of time and space, if the universe was eternal it would have produced a heat death sometime in eternity past because of the second law of thermodynamics, this is one of the reasons almost all in this field have rejected a eternal universe, this is a little hard to unpack but you can look up info on this pretty easy.
Mandangalo18-
From my perspective Big Bang does not explain any first cause, only the expansion that occured. From your perspective Big Bang is absurd. I'm glad we are in agreement that Big Bang does not suitably explain any First Cause, and we won't have to discuss it anymore, since I think it's irrlevant, and you think it's absurd.
I disagree that naturalism states that everything came from nothing. That is a strawman of the naturalistic position. We can talk about that later though, for now it is irrelevant. The argument is about why you think God had to be a first casue; we're not talking about the veracity of naturalism just yet. An argument must stand on its own veracity; a persuasive existential argument cannot be contingent upon negation of a contrary view.
--you said:
"if the universe was eternal it would have produced a heat death sometime in eternity past because of the second law of thermodynamics"
If the Universe was eternal, it would necessarily and by definition be an OPEN system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applys only to CLOSED systems. It is invalid to apply this Law to any open system. I can't imagine astrophysicists fallaciously applying the Second Law and using the invalid conclusion as a reason to think the Universe had a beginning; science presupposes logic, and this reasoning is self-refuting.
Are there any other reasons to think that the Universe had a beginning?
Creationist-
Ok cool, looks like we found our first main topic, is the universe eternal, to tell ya the truth i didnt think this would be a problem needing explaining but is cool i will need to get some info for ya from outside reference's as i havent studied i depth this subject, i cant do much tonight but will try to get onto it by tommorow night.Just a few question's, do you believe that the laws we observe within our system do not apply everywhere in the universe? I would maintain there is a naturalistic system and a supernatural system the naturalistic system being a closed system (e.g the known unverse for the atheist) Im interested in your thought's of the univers being an open system.The reason i bring up naturalism is that really logically there are only 2 arguments either the universe is self creating or self sustaining and eternal, or the universe is the result of a supernatural act.And by disproving one does produce evidence for the other by proxy, since a supernatural event cannot be proven naturalistically we need to investigate the other option and see if it is flawed or not.
Mandangalo18-
I do not hold the position that the Universe is eternal. My logical state on this is "unknown".
I do not hold the position that the Universe is a closed system, nor do I hold the position that the Universe is an open system. My logical state on this is "unknown".
you asked: "do you believe that the laws we observe within our system do not apply everywhere in the universe?"
Through induction, I think it's very likely that Laws accurately describe without exception, everything that is observable.
you said: "[1]either the universe is self creating or [2]self sustaining and eternal, or [3]the universe is the result of a supernatural act" (I added the brackets to identify the options)
This is a false trichotomy. There is at least one other possibility (that I can think of). [4] That the Universe is uncaused commensurate with time, and finite.
Having the quality of being uncaused does not necessitate being eternal. Two of the options assume that the dimension of time existed before a moment of creation, as an act of creation by definition is a temporal proposition.
you said:
"And by disproving one does produce evidence for the other by proxy"
This is true within the system of classical logic when, and only when, two options are contradictorily opposed. That is, there cannot be any wiggle room between the two; the falsified option must exhaustively rule out every bit of the true option. If every possible extension is not exhaustively contradicted, then it is contrary opposition, not contradictory opposition. With contrary opposition, disproving one does not affirm the other. Since there are more than two options, and none of them exhausts the other options, this is a fallacious operation on the square of opposition.
more to come if he ever replys