Please tell me how something can start by itself? — Devans99

Im not claiming something can start by itself, I do not know.
You DO know, so tell me the answer. How do you know that simething cannot? What evidence do you have for this claim?

1. The "argument from motion" is a paradox. It is full of sentiment, assumption and speculation. Just as easily as we can speculate that there must be a "first mover" and assign a human personality to it, we can also speculate that "the singularity" was not the first event to have ever occurred in all of reality. Also, if a "first mover" was to exist as was assumed in the "proof", the implication is that the "first mover" began all things and is outside all time and space, eternal. If not time and space, then something must extend infinitely in all directions through all dimensions or some lack thereof, and this is assumed to be the "first mover". Either without time and space, or if time and space were infinite, both of which are impossible, it would be irrational to think that any instance could occur. By this rationale, we don't exist, and neither does the "first mover". — whollyrolling

Where exactly does he 'assumes' a first mover exists in his proof mean?

2. First Cause. He argues against himself again here, determining that the "first mover" can't have existed eternally because nothing can exist prior to itself, and nothing exists which hasn't been initiated by something else. To paraphrase this nonsense, he says "I'm confused, therefore God". It's ridiculous to use examples from observable reality to support claims of imaginary things that not only have no foundation in observable reality but effectively contradict it. — whollyrolling

He is a little confused maybe. But the solution is to make the first cause timeless. Then it all fits perfectly.

. Necessary Being. Here he hits the nail on the head by iterating what I just pointed out in my previous rant: that this is all absurd. Again, a paradox. "I'm confused, therefore God". — whollyrolling

This is quite a deep argument as I explained in my commentary. I rephrase this argument as:

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’.
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (would have no start), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.

4. Degree. To assume any intrinsic valuation is preposterous. He is now preaching based on abstract human notions of nobility and truth that a God, who if human would be a raging sociopath, is responsible for all that is good and decent in humans but not responsible for anything that is corrupt or evil. — whollyrolling

I agree. I think he was just paying honour to St Aslim.

5. He presumes, again based on religious belief and in the absence of science, that anything that doesn't appear to be self-aware by human standards is unintelligent and aimless, which was fine in the 1200's, when everyone was a blithering moron, but none of this stuff holds true in modern times. — whollyrolling

His argument can be interpreted as the modern argument from design.

This argument, and it's no argument at all, is just another confused rant from a place of scientific ignorance and intellectual deficiency. If its writer isn't intellectually deficient, then he's attempting to mislead his reader and pander to authorities his life depends on. The only thing infinite here is the writer's self-contradiction. — whollyrolling

I note that you have ignored all of my commentary on the 5 ways. You have also ignored my additional arguments for a first cause.

Im not claiming something can start by itself, I do not know.
You DO know, so tell me the answer. How do you know that simething cannot? What evidence do you have for this claim? — DingoJones

I adopt the axiom: can't get something from nothing.
Then if there is nothing, we cannot have something.
So to create one's self from nothing is impossible.

I adopt the axiom: can't get something from nothing. — Devans99

Quantum foam? :chin:

It isn't a deep argument at all. It's quite shallow. He assumes the "first mover" by writing on behalf of a church and education system that will jail him, possibly torture or kill him, if he doesn't. It's obvious from the flow of the dialogue that he began with the premise that God exists and is writing everything else in an attempt to fortify that position. It's a house of cards with a complimentary 90mph wind.

That is not evidence. Thats not even an argument.
Can you answer the question?

It respects the conservation of energy. It does not produce matter. Its all transitory.

In what way is it not an argument?

When you claimed that the man's writing was "proof", you resigned that any further commentary is irrelevant. I haven't ignored it, I just didn't address it.

It isn't a deep argument at all. It's quite shallow. He assumes the "first mover" by writing on behalf of a church and education system that will jail him, possibly torture or kill him, if he doesn't. It's obvious from the flow of the dialogue that he began with the premise that God exists and is writing everything else in an attempt to fortify that position. It's a house of cards with a complimentary 90mph wind. — whollyrolling

Thats why I thought updating it for the 21st century would be appropriate. Thats why I added an additional 5 arguments to justify the existence of a first cause (which you have ignored).

There are no arguments against a first cause and 10 arguments for a first cause.

...its an axiom...an axiom is not an argument. Its actually the complete absence of argument. An axiom is not evidence either.
So, do you have an actual answer to my question?

Well I started from the axiom 'can't get something from nothing' and deduced you can't create yourself. Its a good axiom IMO.

Or to create yourself, you'd have to exist temporally before yourself, which is impossible?

We just addressed this, you haven't answered the question. Im beginning to think you cannot. Is that the case?

It does not produce matter. Its all transitory. — Devans99

That's not how I read the QM explanation of the Big Bang. But maybe I misunderstood. That's complicated stuff. But how did the anti-matter mostly disappear, leaving the matter behind? That sounds a lot like matter from nothing and nowhere.

Something can't come from nothing. An infinite regress is impossible. There must be a timeless first cause. That first cause is God. No one has provided any arguments against this. All glory to the hypnotoad.

It isn't an argument, it's confusion. I'll repeat that I didn't ignore your additional comments, I disregarded them, there's a difference. You said that the writer "proved" the existence of God, not that you "proved" it.

f you don't believe that an arrow in flight must be motionless, then why do you believe that there must be a first cause?

Looks like the same kind of logic to me. — S

this was a straw man argument to begin with. he asked you to explain yourself.

Even though the OP's argument seems valid. Without further evidence and considering people miss information all the time, at this point in time it is just an axiom or brainstorming idea at best.

And I did. Address my explanation or pipe down.

And I did. Address my explanation or pipe down. — S

I've got stuff to do. I'll pipe down. Sorry. lol. Have a good day.

Devans99
1.3k

Please tell me how something can start by itself? — Devans99

You are assuming a start.

Sorta like someone saying, "How can there be a creation without a creator?"

The moment you postulate a "first cause"...you essentially are conceding that somethings have no cause...but "always were."

The, stubbornly, seemingly stone-headedly...you insist that the universe cannot be that thing.

It, according to the Book of Devans...had to have a start...which means that it had to have a first cause.

If you would open your mind...you would see that as absolute blather.

You are assuming a start. — Frank Apisa

Ah, yes. But he has an argument against an infinite regress. An argument which resembles ancient logic which leads to absurd conclusions. Except that his logic only gets partway through the breakdown and then just, again, simply assumes a start, instead of continuing on to infinity. So it is actually far worse, because although this ancient logic is unsound, it is at least valid, whereas his logic makes an invalid logical leap to his desired conclusion.

Whilst by ancient logic, Homer can never reach the end of the path, because before he can get there, he must get halfway there, and before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there, and so on; by his logic, because the event before this one had a cause, and the event before that one had a cause, as did the one before that, and so on and so forth, there simply must be a first cause for no logical reason, but simply because he dogmatically says so under the guise of reason.

S
9.4k

You are assuming a start. — Frank Apisa


Ah, yes. But he has an argument against an infinite regress. An argument which resembles ancient logic which leads to absurd conclusions. Except that his logic only gets partway through the breakdown and then just, again, simply assumes a start, instead of continuing on to infinity. So it is actually far worse, because although this ancient logic is unsound, it is at least valid, whereas his logic makes an invalid logical leap to his desired conclusion. — S

You've hit the nail on the head with the "desired conclusion"...which has been the fly in the ointment from the very beginning. Way back, I (and others, including you, I think) have question Devans' motives for all this supposed reasoning.

My conclusion was that he was aiming at a backdoor "proof" of the existence of a god he had in mind...most likely the same god Aquinas aimed for.

The "logic" he proposes to defend his thesis IS NOT logic. It is a path toward where he is determined to go.

His assumption of a start to "whatever" is necessary for him to then demand a first mover or first cause.

Bottom line: He is going to ask us to pick any point on the circle and see where it leads us.

Yes. He is highly predictable. And the god through the back door tactic is pretty transparent. But remember, none of us have presented any criticism! This is what he must convince himself of in order to maintain his precious delusions.

:"Could God be Non-Material?"

I'm sure it must have been asked and answered, but I don't see it If there is a non-material God, what is/are he,she, it, they if not material?

Sorta like someone saying, "How can there be a creation without a creator?" — Frank Apisa

It is impossible to have a creation without a creator.

The moment you postulate a "first cause"...you essentially are conceding that somethings have no cause...but "always was" — Frank Apisa

Always existing is impossible, see:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being/p1

Ah, yes. But he has an argument against an infinite regress. An argument which resembles ancient logic which leads to absurd conclusions. Except that his logic only gets partway through the breakdown and then just, again, simply assumes a start, instead of continuing on to infinity. So it is actually far worse, because although this ancient logic is unsound, it is at least valid, whereas his logic makes an invalid logical leap to his desired conclusion. — S

Where does it break down? I do not assume a start; I assume that an infinite regress has no start. You have either not read or not understood my argument.

Whilst by ancient logic, Homer can never reach the end of the path — S

We already discussed this. By ancient logic, the universe is discrete is the point.

But remember, none of us have presented any criticism! — S

Frank and S have presented pages of waffle not containing any actual criticism of my arguments.

I'm sure it must have been asked and answered, but I don't see it If there is a non-material God, what is/are he,she, it, they if not material? — tim wood

It has not been answered. We only know of one way of existence. Are other forms of existence possible? It is hard to conceive of other forms of existence. Is it hard because they are just not possible? Or is it hard because we are so used to just one form of existence and have never experienced alternatives?

I think the challenge is how do you represent information if it is not with material? All I can think of is energy.

God made spacetime so is not of spacetime. Maybe the photon is a guide - it is timeless and in a sense spaceless (all distances in the direction of travel compress to zero). So maybe God could be pure energy of some form?

The other possibility christian2017 mentioned is that God is material but higher dimensional. Like being non-material, that would allow him to evade the consequences of the Big Bang alive. But if God is material, he maybe dead by now.

— Devans99

The "waffle" is all yours, Devans.

You have decided to build a case that YOUR GOD exists...and have pretended to be arguing something else. Your arguments are all back door nonsense...and I suspect you know it.

When people point out the the flaws in your arguments...you simply dismiss them and then claim that no one has pointed out any flaws.

Nothing wrong with you guessing YOUR GOD exists...nor even that YOU have proved that YOUR GOD must exist...that YOUR GOD of necessity must exist. Nothing wrong with you thinking you have solved a problem that the finest minds that have ever existed on this planet have not been able to solve.

But you should be more truthful with yourself. Lying to yourself never really works.

YOUR GOD or someone else's gods MAY EXIST. No gods...may also be the reality.

We do not know.

I do not know...and you do not know.

Sorta like someone saying, "How can there be a creation without a creator?"
— Frank Apisa

It is impossible to have a creation without a creator. — Devans99

Whoosh.

Where does it break down? — Devans99

You zoom in on a particular section of the causal chain, follow it along for a while, and then make a giant leap of logic because of your dogmatic faith.

I do not assume a start; I assume that an infinite regress has no start. — Devans99

No, you start by assuming that an infinite regress has no start, and then you do as I described above, which still assumes a start, just not straight away. First, you pretend to be logical, and then you assume a start.

You have either not read or not understood my argument. — Devans99

That's your delusion which you must maintain or your fragile psychology will collapse.

We already discussed this. By ancient logic, the universe is discrete is the point. — Devans99

You miss the point.

Frank and S have presented pages of waffle not containing any actual criticism of my arguments. — Devans99

That's your delusion which you must maintain or your fragile psychology will collapse.

No, you start by assuming that an infinite regress has no start, and then you do as I described above, which still assumes a start, just not straight away. First, you pretend to be logical, and then you assume a start. — S

I do not 'assume an infinite regress has no start' - if it had a start it would not be infinite.