Why are there still Monkeys?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then that would be a 'no' to FearGod.

Actually, that would be a 'no' to your thoughtless comment although, to be fair, you are hardly alone in promoting such thoughtless silliness.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is actually a contradiction far as I can tell FearGod.

The is no contradiction.

 

[idav]

The is no contradiction.

Really? How is it not? Your talking eternity vs starting point. Care to clarify on my silliness or just assert opinion as fact?

 

[FearGod]

Really? How is it not? Your talking eternity vs starting point. Care to clarify on my silliness or just assert opinion as fact?

Starting point for the universe and not for the creator.
Where is the contradiction ?

 

[idav]

Starting point for the universe and not for the creator.
Where is the contradiction ?

To always exist means no starting point. But I think I can see how to read it another way, its a paradox.

 

[FearGod]

To always exist means no starting point. But I think I can see how to read it another way, its a paradox.

The universe should have a starting point whereas God the causer logically should be always existing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem with:

All things that exist require a cause.

Therefore, if God exists, God requires a cause.​

is that it's a sloppy formulation. What is actually being argued is something more akin to:

The natural realm is causal: all that exists is caused.

Therefore, we must either embrace infinite regress or embrace a First Cause that is preternatural.​

There are, indeed, two issues with the above:

1. The premise may be wrong.
2. First Cause is a far cry from Preternatural Agency.

but the have nothing to do with idav's argument.

 

[idav]

The universe should have a starting point whereas God the causer logically should be always existing.

Well see thats the thing. Always existing also means since the beginning, so technically the universe could be both having a start and "always" existing. That is my issue with God being exempt, "always existing doesn't mean, no beginning necessarily", and further to be eternal doesn't make sense to begin with, not having a beginning doesn't even make sense.

Timeless however is something different, time simply hadn't started yet, so then attributing a beginning to the universe is a cheat because naturally it is timeless, time is not a factor for the universe, that is only our perception.

 

[idav]

There are, indeed, two issues with the above:

1. The premise may be wrong.
2. First Cause is a far cry from Preternatural Agency.

but the have nothing to do with idav's argument.

Right premise could be wrong, all that exists should include god though, which doesn't necessarily require cause. Anything in existence that can be exempt could just as easily apply to natural existence.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No, computers got no intelligence.

Computers are designed by man to perform certain tasks,it need hardware and software.

Computers by itself is an evidence that things can't work in perfect manner except by design.

Let a computer have a hardware alone without a software,can it work ?

It is really stupid to think that the unconscious nature did this universe without prior plan and design.

Where did nature come from at first place ?

There should be a starting point and it should be always existing.

Whether or not the "first cause," assuming there was one, always existed is something that I don't think we can be certain about at this time. Furthermore, acknowledging a starting point is quite different from ascribing intelligence or even consciousness to it. It seems to me that doing the latter is unnecessary and unjustified given our relatively limited knowledge about the exact "cause" that gave rise to the natural processes taking place in the universe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is actually a contradiction far as I can tell FearGod.

Right premise could be wrong, ...

Do you understand the difference between saying they the "premise could be wrong" and claiming a non sequitur?

 

[idav]

Do you understand the difference between saying they the "premise could be wrong" and claiming a non sequitur?

No, I obviously didn't catch a non sequitur, til he clarified.

 

[FearGod]

Well see thats the thing. Always existing also means since the beginning, so technically the universe could be both having a start and "always" existing. That is my issue with God being exempt, "always existing doesn't mean, no beginning necessarily", and further to be eternal doesn't make sense to begin with, not having a beginning doesn't even make sense.

Timeless however is something different, time simply hadn't started yet, so then attributing a beginning to the universe is a cheat because naturally it is timeless, time is not a factor for the universe, that is only our perception.

Believing on randomness is silly.

There is no escape from thinking of a starting point to the universe, singularity can never born out of nothingness,so logically speaking there is a force that caused it to happen and this force should be existing all the time, why and how ?not known,but rationally it should be existing,you may call it X ,Y ,God or whatever else ,but it should be there.

This force is supernatural, so it is incomparable to our universe and to the law of cause and effect.

 

[idav]

Believing on randomness is silly.

So is believing in some random default agency.

There is no escape from thinking of a starting point to the universe, singularity can never born out of nothingness,so logically speaking there is a force that caused it to happen and this force should be existing all the time, why and how ?not known,but rationally it should be existing,you may call it X ,Y ,God or whatever else ,but it should be there.

There is an escape and I showed it. Nature is beyond this universe. Existence simply doesn't stop at the walls of spacetime or matter and energy.

This force is supernatural, so it is incomparable to our universe and to the law of cause and effect.

So your escape is to just say it's magic. Thats your prerogative.

 

[FearGod]

So is believing in some random default agency.

But not the unconscious nature as we know it

There is an escape and I showed it. Nature is beyond this universe. Existence simply doesn't stop at the walls of spacetime or matter and energy.

Again the unconscious nature.

So your escape is to just say it's magic. Thats your prerogative.

Doesn't singularity look to you as magic.

Niels Bohr said "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it"

 

[idav]

But not the unconscious nature as we know it



Again the unconscious nature.

Again, qm shows nature to even be beyond "unconscious". At the very least there is sort of knowledge from the interconnected oneness that is reality.

Doesn't singularity look to you as magic.

Niels Bohr said "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it"

Then there is "magic" in nature and there is no issue, nature is timeless cause of this "magic".

 

[FearGod]

Again, qm shows nature to even be beyond "unconscious". At the very least there is sort of knowledge from the interconnected oneness that is reality.


Then there is "magic" in nature and there is no issue, nature is timeless cause of this "magic".

What makes you to accept one option and not the other.

 

[idav]

What makes you to accept one option and not the other.

Cause the interconnection showed at quantum levels is not magic. It is nature and reality, and testable and falsifiable. Singularity makes sense, beyond that throwing any more magic around is over stepping our ability to falsify it. We don't even know the level of spooky stuff that might be happening at the singularity so there is no reason to evoke yet another supernatural entity, this existence is already there.

 

[FearGod]

Cause the interconnection showed at quantum levels is not magic. It is nature and reality, and testable and falsifiable. Singularity makes sense, beyond that throwing any more magic around is over stepping our ability to falsify it. We don't even know the level of spooky stuff that might be happening at the singularity so there is no reason to evoke yet another supernatural entity, this existence is already there.

A tiny point of infinite density makes sense to you.

Can you tell me where did life come from ?

There was no life within the singularity,as no life can exist in the extremely high temperature.

 

[idav]

A tiny point of infinite density makes sense to you.

Can you tell me where did life come from ?

There was no life within the singularity,as no life can exist in the extremely high temperature.

Here is something odd. Why should life come from life, is that your only answer? That certainly wouldn't say where life comes from. Non-life to life, non-intelligence to intelligence, makes sense. Intelligence to intelligence is begging the question. Your last statement is begging the question and appeal to ignorance, actually life can exist in extremely high temperatures, its possible. We don't fully know the answer to that, for all we know life can be all over this universe.