The First Cause was not God.

[Runewolf1973]

But the point is, if it began, then a transcendent cause is necessary.



Yes it does, unless you are claiming that matter has existed forever and ever and has been changing forms forever and ever.....if that is your claim, then you are saying that infinite regression is possible, thus, giving birth to logical absurdities, and if that is the price of naturalism, then I will leave you to it.



Our universe began to exist, wolf. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, wolf. The only thing you can do is posit a pre-big bang scenario, which will only push the question or origins back one step further.

I don't see any need for a transcendant cause. You can keep your God, I will stick with science and we will see where that gets us.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't see any need for a transcendant cause. You can keep your God, I will stick with science and we will see where that gets us.

I'm not sure it's fair to call this stance scientific when you haven't presented any evidence that the first cause is natural, nor of this "fundamental force"

 

[Runewolf1973]

I'm not sure it's fair to call this stance scientific when you haven't presented any evidence that the first cause is natural, nor of this "fundamental force"

I was referring to the stance that science povides more answers to how the Earth and life fomed, not the First Cause. One can only speculate on a First Cause. I speculate it was a natural force or interaction not yet known to science.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't see any need for a transcendant cause. You can keep your God, I will stick with science and we will see where that gets us.

Good idea...

 

[Ouroboros]

I was referring to the stance that science povides more answers to how the Earth and life fomed, not the First Cause. One can only speculate on a First Cause. I speculate it was a natural force or interaction not yet known to science.

A new hypothesis is that our Universe came from the collapse of a four-dimensional star, basically 4D black hole, and that we're at the event horizon of that black hole. (If I understand it right)

The black hole at the birth of the Universe -- ScienceDaily

 

[metis]

A new hypothesis is that our Universe came from the collapse of a four-dimensional star, basically 4D black hole, and that we're at the event horizon of that black hole. (If I understand it right)

The black hole at the birth of the Universe -- ScienceDaily

I have run across something similar to that, and it also said that there's at least a hypothetical possibility that new universes may be created through black holes in our own universe.

 

[Runewolf1973]

A new hypothesis is that our Universe came from the collapse of a four-dimensional star, basically 4D black hole, and that we're at the event horizon of that black hole. (If I understand it right)

The black hole at the birth of the Universe -- ScienceDaily

That would be quite the interaction.:yes:



---

 

[Thief]

I don't see any need for a transcendant cause. You can keep your God, I will stick with science and we will see where that gets us.

It will lead you to Something Greater.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because no one can conceive of something that is logically incoherent. I can't conceive of a squared circle, or a shirt that is all red and all blue at the same time...or someone that is more than 6ft tall but less than 5ft tall. The concept of God is conceivable. We can conceive of such a being, and if something is conceivable it is possible...unless you can point out a logical flaw based on the concept of God, which I don't think you can do.

You can conceive of God? You, in your finite human mind, can fit the entirety of a being I believe I've heard you describe before as infinite? I don't believe you.

The best I think that you - or anyone else - is capable of doing is conceiving of *approximations* of *aspects* of God. Even though you throw around words like "omnipotence" and "omniscience", I don't think that your mind can actually capture the entirety of these concepts, simply because, IMO, it would be impossible for a finite brain to fully comprehend anything infinite.

The Christian one, of course.

Which Christian God? There are as many versions as there are Christians.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You can conceive of God? You, in your finite human mind, can fit the entirety of a being I believe I've heard you describe before as infinite? I don't believe you.

Yet, I conceive of him every day...

The best I think that you - or anyone else - is capable of doing is conceiving of *approximations* of *aspects* of God. Even though you throw around words like "omnipotence" and "omniscience", I don't think that your mind can actually capture the entirety of these concepts, simply because, IMO, it would be impossible for a finite brain to fully comprehend anything infinite.

How is the concept of a being that knows all true propositions that difficult of a concept to grasp?

Which Christian God? There are as many versions as there are Christians.

The God that "so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, and whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." That God...and also included is the Son, who died for the sins of mankind, and the Holy Spirit, who guides us in our everyday lives.

That God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet, I conceive of him every day...

Holding an image in your head that you call "God" is not the same as conceiving of God in his entirety. To someone who has conceived of God in his entirety, everything about God would be known. You wouldn't be able to honestly say things like "God works in mysterious ways", because to you, nothing about God would be a mystery.

Does this describe your conception of God?

How is the concept of a being that knows all true propositions that difficult of a concept to grasp?

It's easy to say the words but much more difficult to put into practice.

How does it feel to know all things? If you can't answer this question, then you haven't actually conceived of omniscience.

The God that "so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, and whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." That God...and also included is the Son, who died for the sins of mankind, and the Holy Spirit, who guides us in our everyday lives.

That God.

At least you've narrowed it down to one of the Trinitarian versions of the Christian God, but you're still not specific enough to tell what God you're talking about.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Holding an image in your head that you call "God" is not the same as conceiving of God in his entirety. To someone who has conceived of God in his entirety, everything about God would be known. You wouldn't be able to honestly say things like "God works in mysterious ways", because to you, nothing about God would be a mystery.

First off, Christians believe that God has revealed himself through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate, and the bible says that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father and a picture of Jesus' personality can be painted as you read the Gospels...and of course, this isn't saying that we know EVERYTHING about God, but since we are making the claim that from a historical perspective, God dwelled on earth with mankind...we are more closer to "knowing" our God than any other religion in the world.

Does this describe your conception of God?

Of course.

It's easy to say the words but much more difficult to put into practice.

Speak for yourself

as it is easy as 1-2-3 for me.

How does it feel to know all things? If you can't answer this question, then you haven't actually conceived of omniscience.

So basically, you are illogically concluding that just because someone hasn't experienced something, that the person can't conceive of it? I've never been beheaded before, but that doesn't mean I can't conceive of the notion...the concept of such a thing happening to me or anyone else.

At least you've narrowed it down to one of the Trinitarian versions of the Christian God, but you're still not specific enough to tell what God you're talking about.

I don't know what more you want...I already said the Trinity view of the Christian God, who is the supernatural Creator of the universe and everything in it...who is omni-everything.

Don't know what more you want.

 

[Sonofason]

Instruction.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.....
is the Cornerstone.

I have placed my cornerstone in the center of my construction.
From this, all other foundation and support are radial.

I see, so you are in heaven, God's realm, right now, so for you, this is about as good as it gets. That's too bad.

 

[Sonofason]

Which controls creation?.....Spirit?....or substance?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
(John 1:1-3)

"And the Word was made flesh..."
(John 1:14)

This is about as precise an answer as I am capable of giving. If you want more precision, you'll have to make it up yourself.

 

[Sonofason]

I was referring to the stance that science povides more answers to how the Earth and life fomed, not the First Cause. One can only speculate on a First Cause. I speculate it was a natural force or interaction not yet known to science.

The will of God is a natural force.

 

[Sonofason]

A new hypothesis is that our Universe came from the collapse of a four-dimensional star, basically 4D black hole, and that we're at the event horizon of that black hole. (If I understand it right)

The black hole at the birth of the Universe -- ScienceDaily

And how exactly is this speculation helping anyone?

 

[Runewolf1973]

The will of God is a natural force.

So you're idea of God is not a man-like being?

 

[Sonofason]

So you're idea of God is not a man-like being?

I believe God can be what ever He wants to be.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There is no scientific experiment that can state "this matter and energy has been here indefinitely forever."

Unfortunately, a lot of the properties of the cosmos breakdown at the point of the big bang. The standard model holds that the entirety of spacetime, space, time, matter, etc., existed at one point and continued to exist. The same logic that tells us laws like the first law of thermodynamics will continue to hold tomorrow just as they did millions and billions of years ago informs us that when none of these laws (or any properties of the cosmos, physical theories, etc.) exist, then an already outdated and demonstrably false "classical" model of causality that is behind a pre-Christian "first cause" argument adopted in particular by medieval Christian philosophers demonstrates nothing.

Second, it is logically impossible for matter to be "changing" forever and ever indefinitely.

It is logically impossible for any "now" to be defined such that "forever" doesn't already exist:

There is a very famous "thought experiment" that comes from Einstein and can be found in countless textbooks, popular science books, and other places (and there are variations of it). For Einstein, it was a thought experiment, but we have long since shown that it is true (and shown in various ways).

Often it involves a spaceship, but as Einstein originally used a train I'll start with that. First, it allows an easier, more intuitive set-up. It's natural to imagine that were you on a train and I standing along the track with my catcher's mitt, what would happen if you threw a ball to me? Imagine that the train you're on is travelling 100mph. You (being the star pitcher you are), throw me your 95mph fastball. From your perspective, it travels at 95mph. For poor me with my mitt, it's travelling 195 mph, because the speed of the train adds to the speed of the ball. This does not happen with light, which leads us to the important example.


Imagine one car of a train in motion along a straight track. A person named Alice is sitting in the middle of that train-car. Another person, Bob, is standing at a single spot along the track the train is travelling on. Naturally, at some point the train will reach Bob, and thus there will be a moment as the train is passing Bob at which Bob and Alice are eye-to-eye, meaning you can draw a straight line from where Alice is sitting to where Bob is standing, and that line will be perpendicular/orthogonal to the track. As Alice is in the middle of the car, naturally she is equidistant from both ends of the car (she is as far from the left end as she is from the right). Although Bob isn't in the train-car, the moment you can draw that perpendicular/orthogonal line from Bob to Alice, Bob is also as far away from the left side of the train-car as from the right.

All that leads up to the important "event". The moment Bob and Alice are eye-to-eye, lightening (travelling at the speed of light c, which is constant) strikes both ends of the train-car. We'll call the left side of the train-car A and the right side B. Imagine both Bob and Alice can see both lightening bolts strike. Here's are problem. The light emitted from both bolts reach Bob's eyes at exactly the same moment. So, naturally he asserts that the lighting simultaneously hit both A and B (hit both sides at the exact same time).

Mary, however, sees things differently. Although the speed of light is constant, the speeds at which Bob and Mary are travelling are not. Bob is travelling at the speed the Earth is, but Mary is travelling 100mph faster (how much faster is irrelevant so I picked a number easy to work with). That means as the light waves travel from A and B to Mary, Mary is moving towards A, and is moving faster towards A than is Bob. So from her perspective, lightening did not strike A & B simultaneously, but struck B first and then A.

Who is right? They both are. Why does any of this matter? Because it means there is no "now".

Without even leaving special relativity for the much harder questions about space & time we'd have with general relativity (not to mention QM), we now have ways to talk about "events' that differ from what we are used to. I am loathe to get into discussions yet of the contraction and dilation of space and time, but introducing worldlines is important to define events. Imagine a clock existing in 3D space. It exists in 3D space only as an object without any "now" (any time). To allow time into the picture requires that we say the clock exists in four dimensional space. We can now think of this clock moving through time. However, it is still defined spatially, and uniquely so. No other clock will experience moving through time the way this clock does. This is true of all things, and we call this movement through spacetime a "worldline" (it's more complicated than this but unless we get into inertial reference frame and uniform motion and other unpleasantly complicated things, we'll leave it be). An event is a point in 4D, and to the extent we can speak of different objects or observers experiencing the same event we do so only through reference to what is called a light cone:

Neither worldlines or reference frames define events; light cones do. The examples above show one reason why: simultaneity for any observer depends upon the "spread" of light waves, which means that we cannot define an event by any frame of reference or the entire wordline of an entities frame of reference.

This creates a problem. An event can occur before another given one reference frame, and after given some other. Light cones allow us to place limits on causality (sort of; we're ignoring problems with nonlocality and the possibility of superluminal signals among other things), but these are "local" and cannot tell us that some event occurred before or after another.

Experiments have shown that we can't order events linearly such that there exist any possible sequence of "events" that start at time X and end at time Y other than those that define "events" for one and only one physical system (or, more relevantly, one and only one "observer").

 

[Runewolf1973]

I believe God can be what ever He wants to be.

If you mean that God is the totality of everything that exists naturally, then I can accept that. One of my favorite quotes...

"I am the light that shines over all things, I am everything. From me all came forth and to me all return. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me there." TGOT