tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post3028132636969011769..comments2024-03-14T18:56:31.716-05:00Comments on Two Catholic Men and a Blog: Are You a Clear Thinker?Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-56802566904885425872013-09-30T14:06:19.882-05:002013-09-30T14:06:19.882-05:00Christian,
You make a false assumption that every...Christian,<br /><br />You make a false assumption that everything that is "real" can be tested. Why do you assume that? Prior to modern times, many "real" things in our physical world could not be detected directly (for example infrared light - see my earlier reply to you). Did those things become "real" when they could be directly detected? Where they "unreal" prior to that time? No.<br /><br />If you believe only what can be tested, you will miss out on lots of things. Love cannot be measured or tested or induced. Some of its consequences can, but the cause itself cannot directly be seen. Do you believe that someday it will? If so, that's faith in Science. If not, why can't it be detected? Isn't it real?<br /><br /> Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-89364603194250636002013-09-30T13:57:30.815-05:002013-09-30T13:57:30.815-05:00Raymond,
This is fine. You are adding a missing ...Raymond,<br /><br />This is fine. You are adding a missing premise that a state of nothingness existed. This state of nothingness follows from the current theory of the Big Bang (and even from a theory that includes a sequential (but not infinite) series of Big Bangs).<br /><br />If you reject the Big Bang theory which implies the (logically) preceding nothingness, that's fine. I just do not agree.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />As to your follow up, I would rather establish that a non-physical cause exists before discussing the attributes of such a cause. Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-57761580672867608642013-09-30T13:31:53.769-05:002013-09-30T13:31:53.769-05:00Well, I am certainly not up on the current science...Well, I am certainly not up on the current science on Cosmology, so I will accept your statement about "not backwards eternal". <br /><br />However, the basic logical premise doesn't quite ring true for me. I hope I am restating it adequately.<br /><br />1. The physical world cannot have generated spontaneously from nothingness.<br />2. The physical world exists.<br />3. An agent outside of space and time must have created the physical universe.<br /><br />How about...<br />1. The physical world cannot have generated spontaneously from nothingness.<br />2. The physical world exists.<br />3. The state of nothingness must not have existed.<br /><br />That one seems more logically sound to me - current science notwithstanding.<br /><br />And as a follow up (which I dont think you have expressly stated in this thread, but I'll present it anyway) - if there was an agent outside of space and time that created the physical universe, was that agent the Judeo-Christian God? If so, why do you think that?Raymondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-81429668096917941112013-09-28T18:31:42.295-05:002013-09-28T18:31:42.295-05:00Perfect, thn if the cause is part of our reality. ...Perfect, thn if the cause is part of our reality. Then it can be tested. So now we can test this cause as its part of our reality. <br /><br />So lets skip the acrobatics and call the cause Biblical God. We can test the prayer hypothesis for example and it fails. So logical conclusion.Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243905647317437724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-38296794171570314682013-09-27T22:55:00.166-05:002013-09-27T22:55:00.166-05:00The best scientific minds agree that the material ...The best scientific minds agree that the material universe is not backwards eternal. It had a beginning. Also, it has been shown that entropy endures across previous universes, so again physical reality is not backwards eternal.<br /><br />So it's not really as likely.<br /><br />If there ever was a state of nothingness and if you assume that's all there was then there would be nothing now. The most reasonable conclusion based on science and logic is that there is something other than the physical universe that started / caused it.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-22487135793181874652013-09-27T18:35:56.140-05:002013-09-27T18:35:56.140-05:00Even if we stipulate that something can't come...Even if we stipulate that something can't come from nothing, the nothing in itself hasn't been established. Yes, the universe may have started as the result of a specific event, but the concept that there was a state of nothingness before that is just an assumption. Maybe the event that started reality as we current perceive it was the destruction of a previous reality, with all its matter, energy and duration. It is just as likely a proposition as a state of nothingness.Raymondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-7983002306192472812013-09-27T13:20:30.656-05:002013-09-27T13:20:30.656-05:00Raymond,
First of all while true (I haven't p...Raymond,<br /><br />First of all while true (I haven't proven it), you find yourself in a very small minority (perhaps of just you) who believe that something can come from nothing. Again, nothing is defined as no matter, no energy, no space nor time. Boom. Something of matter/energy/space/time appears. Uncaused. That is what I assert cannot happen.<br /><br />Secondly, this type of statement is called an axiom. It is a fundamental assumption. It is by definition unproven but still considered valid. One can challenge assumptions with proof otherwise, but in the absence of proof either way, one can freely choose to assert or deny it.<br /><br />Thirdly, you did not answer my question, are YOU asserting the contrary to my premise? Do you actually want to say that something can come from nothing? Or are you simply pointing out that it might not be that way? Do you BELIEVE it?<br /><br /><br />Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-67551701611785515082013-09-27T10:54:09.443-05:002013-09-27T10:54:09.443-05:00Ben, you are certainly right that I made an overge...Ben, you are certainly right that I made an overgeneralization. Science has the capacity of answering questions about the physical universe, but it still takes a human agent to work the questions to get to the answers. I think that is a little better statement. There are plenty of questions that science doesnt answer. Movie trivia, who won the big game, what was the result of the vote, where'd you get that coat?<br /><br />But the tape measure analogy isnt very helpful. We certainly do have ways to measure time (duration) energy and force. Tape measures are used to measure size and would not be appropriate for other scientific purposes.<br /><br />Joe, I am challenging your premise on the basis that you have not tested EVERYTHING to be able to say that NOTHING can bring itself into existence. I'm not saying that it's false, but that you havent proven with certainty that it is true. You're assuming it is true. Raymondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-27924193499028932202013-09-26T15:03:37.989-05:002013-09-26T15:03:37.989-05:00Raymond,
Okay so are you actually challenging my ...Raymond,<br /><br />Okay so are you actually challenging my premise "Nothing can bring itself into existence"? Another way to say this is "Nothing can cause itself to be"<br /><br />Since I cannot assume you actually mean this, I will ask you directly. Do you assert that the above statements are false?<br /><br /><br />Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-71689354582998267172013-09-26T14:41:05.179-05:002013-09-26T14:41:05.179-05:00Hey Ray,
Questions about morality, justice, good, ...Hey Ray,<br />Questions about morality, justice, good, evil, the meaning of your life, etc., are not questions for science. Science is the wrong tool, just like a tape measure cannot measure all things. Can we use a tape measure to measure time or energy or force? Should we then say the following?<br /><br />“It is certainly a logical fallacy to say ‘therefore a tape measure CANNOT measure all things’. All you can truly say logically is that a tape measure HAS NOT measure all things, and a tape measure MIGHT NOT measure all things.”<br /><br />Peace.<br />Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11953563578914140396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-23906363737754468282013-09-26T13:49:44.029-05:002013-09-26T13:49:44.029-05:00The statement "nothing can bring itself into ...The statement "nothing can bring itself into existence" is an assumption. Again, from a scientific method perspective, a better statement is "we have no evidence of anything bringing itself into existence". <br /><br />And, "the logical conclusion is that of a non-physical cause" is not logical in the least. The logical conclusion is that we have insufficient evidence to explain the cause. The cause could very well be a physical cause that we have not discovered. (It could also be a non-physical cause too, but it is also a logical leap to say that ANY physical result can have a non-physical cause.<br /><br />It is certainly a logical fallacy to say "therefore science CANNOT answer all questions. All you can truly say logically is that science HAS NOT answered all questions, and science MIGHT NOT answer all questions.<br /><br />That also means that you are putting words in my mouth when you say "I have faith that Science will someday know." I have no such faith, because some questions may be so complex (or irrelevant) that science won't make the attempt.Raymondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-18605022784890563072013-09-25T23:47:21.974-05:002013-09-25T23:47:21.974-05:00I came up with masked man = doctor.I came up with masked man = doctor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-10620460583057864172013-09-25T15:33:10.696-05:002013-09-25T15:33:10.696-05:00Raymond,
Unfortunately that is not correct. Her...Raymond, <br /><br />Unfortunately that is not correct. Here is a scenario. Nothing can bring itself into existence. Yet the physical universe is finite in time. Assuming that every effect has a cause, what could have caused the universe? The logical conclusion is that of a non-physical cause.<br /><br />What empirical science can answer questions about anything non-physical ? You cannot sense it with your sensors nor measure it with your calipers. Therefore science CANNOT answer all questions.<br /><br />Lastly, I would never say "I don't know, so therefore God." However it seems like you are saying something close to "I don't know yet, but I have faith that Science will someday know." Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-80970363801935235162013-09-25T13:59:47.395-05:002013-09-25T13:59:47.395-05:00"Once you understand that science cannot answ..."Once you understand that science cannot answer all questions..."<br /><br />Actually, no. That science CANNOT answer all questions assumes facts not in evidence. All you can really say is that science HASN'T answered all questions. There may in fact be some questions that have a level of complexity (or a small amount of significance) such that their solution is impractical or a waste of time, but you still can't say "I don't know, so therefore God."Raymondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-10759674991675597762013-09-25T08:52:07.722-05:002013-09-25T08:52:07.722-05:00I also came up with a fireman.I also came up with a fireman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-71045456560754231292013-09-25T07:54:24.171-05:002013-09-25T07:54:24.171-05:00That is the answer I came up with as well.That is the answer I came up with as well.Katie in FLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01758195119528620238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-30170519121902619212013-09-18T08:41:12.289-05:002013-09-18T08:41:12.289-05:00I don't understand the problem here. If the p...I don't understand the problem here. If the physical universe was not always in existence, then what began it? The only logical possibility is a non-physical cause of some kind, right? <br /><br />If so, that non-physical cause must be "real" (aka part of reality) or else it does not exist.<br /><br />If you assert that only material things are real, then the universe must not exist now because its cause never existed.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-21896646582208974942013-09-17T21:34:51.072-05:002013-09-17T21:34:51.072-05:00Anyway. Yes, for the cause of the argument lets ac...Anyway. Yes, for the cause of the argument lets accept their is an immaterial (non reality) cause to the universe. OK so there is an immaterial cause to the universe. Lets proceed form here.<br /><br />I just want to make sure if something is immaterial then it is not reality.Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243905647317437724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-62271793078951800522013-09-16T08:55:03.990-05:002013-09-16T08:55:03.990-05:00Christian,
You are a again using "universe&q...Christian,<br /><br />You are a again using "universe" and "reality" as synonymous. <br /><br />All right, let's use your definitions. <br /><br />Premise 1: The universe is all reality<br />Premise 2: The universe began to exist<br />Premise 3: Something cannot cause itself<br />Conclusion: Reality (the universe) does not exist<br /><br />This can be a problem if the universe we live in does not exist. There has to be something OTHER THAN physical causes to cause the physical universe. (Please do not inject any pre-conceived notion of God here)<br /><br />Your BTW doesn't help, since there if there had been a physical something prior to the current universe, then there must have been something else to cause it. <br /><br />I am looking for the start of ANY physical universe. <br /><br />You either keep looking for another physical cause (uninteresting) or deny a non-physical cause, which leave you in the same unexplained state. Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-60220522165547020122013-09-15T04:07:39.502-05:002013-09-15T04:07:39.502-05:00So this God cannot effect the reality we live in a...So this God cannot effect the reality we live in as he/she exists outside of this reality. If yes God is useless and could be called a singularity.<br /><br />If no, (and we use biblical definitions of god) then we can measure God and all evidence shows that God does not exist.<br /><br />Now prove god and then when you have proven god, please make sure it is your god. Proof not faith.<br /><br />xxxxxx<br />BTW on a side note, there is now some people that believe the Universe came into existence from a collapse of a four dimensional star, this is very recent work in the last week. <br />http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243905647317437724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-83623635974493268532013-09-14T09:35:56.882-05:002013-09-14T09:35:56.882-05:00Christian,
Follow the logic.
If
Premise 1: th...Christian,<br /><br />Follow the logic. <br /><br />If <br />Premise 1: the universe did not always exist<br />Premise 2: the universe (on your view) is "all reality"<br />Premise 3: something cannot create itself<br />Conclusion: The Universe does not exist now<br /><br />But since<br />The Universe exists<br /><br />Your proposition is refuted. One of the premises must be false.<br /><br />We clearly need to distinguish the physical universe from all reality.<br /><br />(One cannot substitute God for the universe in my propositions above since he is eternal, and does not fulfill premise 1. See the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument" rel="nofollow">Kalaam Cosmological Argument</a>.)Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-10247656930374414282013-09-13T23:28:02.857-05:002013-09-13T23:28:02.857-05:00How can the Universe not encompass all reality. If...How can the Universe not encompass all reality. If this is so then there is a reality beyond what we call reality? And that makes no sense as it is a reality or it is non-existent, but it cannot be both.Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243905647317437724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-8751449071243114552013-09-12T09:12:32.940-05:002013-09-12T09:12:32.940-05:00Hi Christian,
One thing at a time. Do you say th...Hi Christian,<br /><br />One thing at a time. Do you say that the physical universe came from nothing? I say that is a contradiction.<br /><br />I say that the physical universe came from a non-physical cause. Let's leave out what that is for the moment.<br /><br />Universe does not mean "all reality" it means physical space-time and matter. If we disagree on terminology, we'll never understand each other.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-52155794773604093842013-09-12T08:18:47.572-05:002013-09-12T08:18:47.572-05:00Hi again
I am not sure how I can explain this any...Hi again<br /><br />I am not sure how I can explain this any other way but to say. If the universe came from nothing according to your definition of the word, that been nothing is literally the absence of everything. Then a non material object is nothing and hence does not exist. So if there was nothing then God can not be the creator as God is nothing.<br /><br />So If I agree with your statement then all I am saying is that God is nothing (non-existent) according to the definition of the word.Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243905647317437724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005473794963219887.post-48011028429265417592013-09-11T21:08:38.785-05:002013-09-11T21:08:38.785-05:00Hi Christian,
If there once was nothing, how can ...Hi Christian,<br /><br />If there once was nothing, how can there be something now? <br /><br />We know that the universe is not eternal. It had a beginning. We know this. <br /><br />The problem is that we know logically that effects always have causes. Since the first matter in the universe was once NOTHING, something non-material MUST have caused it.<br /><br />Can you agree?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13632007696351816323noreply@blogger.com