Results 11 to 19 of 19
-
02-20-2014, 04:31 PM #11
You said without a beginning or end, time can't be linear. If it never re-meets itself, it is.
-
-
02-20-2014, 04:36 PM #12
infinite.eternal,never ending
or the greatest noddle that was ever made
-
02-20-2014, 05:01 PM #13
Basically.
-
-
02-20-2014, 05:48 PM #14
first let me correct my mistake, I was talking about Aquinas not Anselm(easy to mix up)
gsj68 hit it on the head,suffers from the same paradox that the other creationism and big bang theories,the paradox of "what came before"
alex
This expansion came from a singularity.....what "created" this singularity or what was before the singularity or what occurred for this singularity to expand?
I can do the same, where did the thing that made the singularity come from? what force cause the unknown force of expansion? where did they come from?
you use the word unknown, I use the word creator or god.
somewhere lies the source of everything, it cannot have a beginning (this alone is hard to comprehend) or it would not be the beginning.
something existed before anything else and everything came from this "thing", god, unknown.
by saying it is god does not mean it is the end all answer, is not the premise for theism to understand god, even though we know we will never fully understand?
so scientists searching for the "cause" of the big bang are looking for this unknown, this god.
the issue is, once you hear the word god, you envision a magic, white man, but I do not.
God is not a man, nor has a race.
there is no way for us to find the beginning, because that means it would not have a beginning and thus somehow "created" itself. there will always be that next layer of the unknown, always.
so by trying to say this is a cop out or contradicts itself, only means you did not look at the whole picture and only the word GOD and then assigned this word a definition and characteristics.
Do I believe in the Cosmological Argument?
it is an argument that has bases in science, but has many flaws because it deals with the unknown, so like any religious argument, it cannot be proven.
The best argument against it, is also the simplest one;
David Hume (Darwin's central influence and perhaps the greatest western philosopher to ever live);
The fact is we do not know how nature or living things are made, so in turn we cannot know if an intelligent being created them.
now this is a true argument you cannot argue with. why? because it does not try to analogize the Cosmological argument or even pick it apart, leave out pieces, or expand upon it. it sticks to the facts of the C.A. and does not try to distort or read into it. it simply states what we all know, which is we cannot know.
In fact, it is perhaps the best argument on why we should all be agnostic, but for some reason we are not.
-
02-20-2014, 06:04 PM #15
It's about being honest, I legitimately don't know, and I don't think ANYONE knows....and that includes you.
Sure, you have this belief, conviction, whatever you want to call it, that it was indeed god, and to add more to that it was the Christian god, not the other thousands of other gods.....fine, you can believe that, there's nothing inherently wrong with believing that.
But I would think, that most humans have a thirst for knowledge and truth....and unfortunately the Christian god or for that matter any other god doesn't provide the necessary requirements to be considered "truth".
Ok, fine.
But why do YOU use the word "god", why not use the appropriate name? "An unknown".
An Unknown is responsible for the singularity.
An Unknown is responsible for the origin of life on this planet.
Why must "god" be attributed to an unknown?
Look at the example I did with the speed of light, it's a flawed argument even though on the surface it seems perfectly logical.
That's what the Cosmological argument is.
So, why aren't you agnostic?
What's holding you back?Last edited by JustAlex; 02-20-2014 at 06:09 PM.
-
-
02-20-2014, 06:14 PM #16
I think we should hang out sometime
-
02-20-2014, 06:31 PM #17
I am not a pheasant-plucker;
I'm a pheasant-plucker's son,
And I'll keep on plucking pheasants;
Till the pheasant-plucking's done.
-
-
02-20-2014, 06:41 PM #18
I agree wholeheartedly.
-
02-20-2014, 07:10 PM #19
Alex, that is both the beauty and the ugliness of "belief".
I guess I should put myself in a pickle and try o explain my belief.
I do and I do not believe in the "Christian" God, meaning if you are using the term "Christian" referring to Jesus, then yes I believe the "God" he spoke of as this unknown creator. If you mean Biblical or the average "Christians" God, then the answer is no. Why? Because it has been messed up in so many ways that it is impossible not to see it. Man has used it for every reason you can think of, it has been help responsible for, given excuses as, and said to mean so many things we could never touch on them all, but that is no surprise look what we have done with everything. The fact is I cannot give you a fact of why I believe, because that would require proof, which I cannot prove what I believe, I can only believe it.
Does this mean I think I know something others don't, heck no, it just means I am perhaps more curious than some, or smart enough to know I can be wrong and that in the grand scheme of things, I am dumb. (or perhaps I am dumb enough to know I am not smart?)
Religion is one of those things (for me) that makes no sense unless you were in their shoes, it is unexplainable. It is some what like someone who says they encountered aliens, or had an intimate encounter with bigfoot, it seems highly unlikely! no matter how much they tell you and even how honest they may sound, there is something there (in your head) trying to find another reason.
back to topic,
The facts are anything that is a theory is just that, a theory, and is not fact. A theory can be used as a catalyst for deeper thought, and when it comes to our philosophical nature, we can only have theories and try to deepen them or dismiss them.
The idea of the Cosmological Argument cannot be to prove something, because you simply cannot prove the true unknown.rather than being proof it is a way of exploring an avenue of thought, one idea, one suggestion and seeing how it fits into or doesn't fit into your big picture.
-