Further, coming to the present moment by traversing an infinite past is worse than counting to positive infinity from zero, because the former cannot even get started. It is like trying to jump out of a bottomless pit. — JP Moreland
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God — Aquinas
This study is hence another demonstration that a chemistry complex enough to support life can arise under circumstances that are not anything like the ones we experience today. — Sabine Hossenfelder
even if sound, the argument does not suggest anything "divine", sentient, conscious, thinking, caring, loving, warranting worship or prayer, so this amounts to unwarranted or ad hocpersonification/anthropomorphization; rather, Craig's conclusion shadows Aquinas' definition inSumma Theologiae, which hence smuggled his God in the backdoor with the baggage
if there was a definite earliest time (or "time zero"), then anything that existed at that time, began to exist at that time, and that includes any first causes, gods/God, or whatever else
an "atemporal", "eternal" cause of a universe that has a definite age (like 14 billion years) is incompatible with the principle of sufficient reason, since such a cause leads us to expect an infinite age of the universe - there's no sufficient reason the universe is 14 billion years old and not some other age (yet item 1 is supposedly related to sufficient reason)
spacetime is an aspect of the universe, but "before time" is incoherent; causality is temporal, but "a cause of causation" is incoherent
1. if some God of theism could create something out of "nothing", as it were, then nihil fit ex nihilo is already violated, and we might as well dispose of the principle, in which case said God is an extraneous hypothesis — jorndoe
if gods/God can be atemporal (changeless, "outside of time", or something), assuming that makes sense, then we might suppose any such "origin" of the universe — jorndoe
It concerns the question of what, if anything, caused the laws of physics to be as they are. ( It might not be an intelligible question at all, but that is not the point here.) — Wayfarer
Speeds were low enough and measurement was fuzzy enough so that Newton wasn't seen to be 'wrong.' Instrumentally, Newton was right indeed. He helped us get what we wanted. The "better" equations might have been inconveniently complex and slowed things down practically. I like time separate from space. I suppose we are wired that way.As Galilean relativity is now considered an approximation of special relativity that is valid for low speeds, special relativity is considered an approximation of general relativity that is valid for weak gravitational fields, i.e. at a sufficiently small scale and in conditions of free fall. — Wiki
I recall well how the key ideas of my idealistic theory of natural laws - of “lawfulness as imputation” - came to me in 1968 during work on this project while awaiting the delivery of Arabic manuscripts in the Oriental Reading Room of the British Museum. It struck me that what a law states is a mere generalization, but what marks this generalization as something special in our sight -- and renders it something we see as a genuine law of nature -- is the role that we assign to it in inference. Lawfulness is thus not a matter of what the law-statement says, but how it is used in the systematization of knowledge -- the sort of role we impute to it. These ideas provided an impetus to idealist lines of thought and marked the onset of my commitment to a philosophical idealism which teaches that the mind is itself involved in the conceptual constitution of the objects of our knowledge. — Rescher
Here's the kalam/cosmological argument as rendered deductively by Craig (see included links for details):
1. whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
4. it's rational to believe that said cause is God — jorndoe
The problem with such arguments are that they are founded on something that is inherently unstable and subject to change - namely the current scientific model of the Universe. I don't understand why anyone bothers. Science will change. What's the point of trying to make up arguments which are based on such fickle considerations? After all ...Here's the kalam/cosmological argument as rendered deductively by Craig (see included links for details):
1. whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
4. it's rational to believe that said cause is God
Below I'll round up some pros/justification and cons/objections, for your comments and target practice. — jorndoe
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also — Matthew 6:19-21
LOL - he certainly chose one which makes it quite difficult to get to the "motions of procreation"... there are much easier alternatives, you know :) (maybe he loved the girl (interest in procreation being only secondary), in which case it's very good. small L love leads to capital L Love ;) )Now that is a convincing reason to adopt a new worldview. The urge to go through the motions of procreation is very powerful. — andrewk
The Kalam maybe is since it has to state the universe has a beginning. But any cosmological argument is merely going to state that all we need is a contingent world. All the theist needs to argue for the existence of God is to have Being somewhere in our philosophy.The problem with such arguments are that they are founded on something that is inherently unstable and subject to change - namely the current scientific model of the Universe. I don't understand why anyone bothers. Science will change. What's the point of trying to make up arguments which are based on such fickle considerations? After all ... — Agustino
I've been meaning to make a post on Ross's argument. I'm not sure if it is as persuasive as others make it out to be. — darthbarracuda
I know - I haven't criticised Aquinas's arguments. I think they are valid, but NOT persuasive to an unbeliever. Different arguments must be sought out, as illustrated by Pascal. One has to appeal to the heart and to the will - not to the mind and the intellect.The Kalam maybe is since it has to state the universe has a beginning. But any cosmological argument is merely going to state that all we need is a contingent world. All the theist needs to argue for the existence of God is to have Being somewhere in our philosophy. — Marty
Pf. It doesn't even matter, I'd believe in it even if it was false, that's how beautiful it is. As Socrates said about the afterlife, I will say about this - I may be wrong, but at least I will go to the grave with hope and love in my heart, and if death does indeed end all, what better way to meet it than carrying this beauty in your heart. — Agustino
I'm honestly inclined to think this isn't true within my experience, and always offered some level of charity. So time to time I asked people how they viewed God - mostly because I go to a catholic church sometimes - and one-hundred percent of the time I generally get a God of three O's. (Or at least one.) Nobody's anthropomorphizing God unless by that we mean that he has a divine intellect. But then, it seems like the only way to have a teleological world is for the world to have purpose and reason, but that can't be done without an intellectual agent. So, God can't be extended or Earthly, but he can certainly be given a disembodied intellect.For the most part it seems that most theists want an anthropomorphic God. He should think and love, just as we think and love, but do it better. I can understand that metaphysically inclined thinkers may focus on God as a solution to an intellectual problem. When I was religious many years, I looked toward God for both reasons. I could talk to an infinite, benevolent intelligence directly, and I has a kosmos that made sense in human terms (God's love, which could only mean something to me in terms of human love). — Hoo
Nobody's anthropomorphizing God unless by that we mean that he has a divine intellect. — Marty
That's an interesting claim. It is the exact opposite of my own impression, although I would not seek to elevate my impression to a claim.It matters how you get to the motions of procreation - if you get there maimed, humiliated, and broken - or you get there whole - most non-religious people get there in the former category. — Agustino
Yes - it's called (1) keeping my eyes open :P (take this as a joke) and (2) understanding that without the necessary support structures, all human arrangements are very unstable. For example - you take two atheists. They form a couple. What will hold them together? Chance? Then take two Christians, schooled in the virtues, raised up in the faith, and committed first to God and second to each other. What will hold them together? Well let's see - because they are schooled in the virtues, they will practice a sexual morality which will not encourage violent emotions amongst each like - like cheating, looking after other women, etc. They will respect each other, and care for each other spiritually, not just on the emotional and the physical level, another bind between them. Furthermore, because their commitment to God comes first, they understand that their love can only flourish within the world which is limited and guided by the virtues, and thus they will be more likely to respect them.Perhaps you have a source for your claim? — andrewk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.