Sum-Styled Cosmological Argument

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: namelesss
"If the primary assumption fails, as this one does, then the rest of the 'argument' fails. Everything exists (by necessity)! That something 'is', is evidence that it could never have been otherwise! Not anything can 'fail to exist'. If you can name it, it exists in your mind and words, if nowhere else! Fail 1."

Yes if something exist then it exist. This is in the realm of temporal possibility. Temporally, things that exist would be necessary, but a metaphysically necessary being cannot fail to exist.

That is absolute gobbledygook!
I said that everything exists, and you agreed.
Fine.
You must be intelligent and handsome! *__-
Then (cometh the gobbledygook) you asserted that something "this" is the realm of temporal possibility, and anything and everything that exists in this realm, does so necessarily.
I guess that the 'fact' that it exists, is evidence of the necessity of it's existing, Here! Now! After all, what is is, and can never be otherwise. So it is, by necessity, what is!
Then you go on to say that a 'metaphysically necessary being cannot fail to exist', but neither can your 'temporal.
The whole unnecessarily dualistic discrimination always resolves into '0'!
Things don't 'necessarily or unnecessarily exist, they all exist!
There are no levels of existence, no hierarchy.
All that 'dualism' is ego, thought, imprinting. Vanity.

You and I exist but we exist contingently. If our parents did not exist then you nor I could exist. We owe our existence to some external cause, this immediately disproves your idea that everything exist by necessity.

Just your unsupported assertion proves nothing.
The existence of any and everything in existence is 'contingent' on the existence of the Universe.
I and the Universe are One.
The functioning of your body depends on you retaining your head.
Is your body contingent on your head?
What a silly question, no?

That is a truth claim and one you definitely cannot back up.

Actually, I can 'back up' everything that I offer here.
Perhaps wisdom would have requested some of that 'supporting evidence' before summarily dismissing it.

The idea of contingent things is not in question by an philosopher that I know of and none of them argue that all things are necessary.....

And yet I can successfully argue that everything is 'contingent' on everything else, and that there is not anything else on which anything would be 'contingent'.
You have such a spiritual Christy name, do you not believe that God is One?
Or have you never pondered the implications?
As far as your statement;
See; appeal to ignorance fallacy.
See; appeal to authority fallacy.
Obviously, you haven't thought this out for yourself, but 'imbibed' the thoughts of others.

"The great snare of thought is the uncritical acceptance of irrational assumptions!" - Will Durant

There is not anything that is 'external/autonomous' to anything else! All that exists is 'interconnected', an inherent feature of the One Reality.

I mean your entitled to your opinion but I see no reason to think that this is true.

Pay attention, perhaps you might.
Again I ask, do you not 'believe/think' God is One?
Very simple question.
Because if you do, and have the slightest insight as to what it might mean then you would have to agree with me that not anything exists other than the One Universe/Reality/God!!

Are you saying that programmers are external to their programs?

No! Quite the opposite, there is no difference between the program and the programmer!
They are merely two Perspectives of the same One Reality!

Carpenters aren't external to the table ? A watchmaker not external to their watch? I simply don't understand what you think you know, but it seems completely false.

No! Quite the opposite, there is no difference between the program and the programmer!
They are merely two Perspectives of the same One Reality!

"God/Universe is One! Quantum mechanics demonstrates that all the time."

THE UNIVERSE IS ONE!
How do you know?

There are many avenues of Knowledge.
I'm going to grab a very simple concept;
The definition of something defines whether that something is that something, or not!
If it doesn't fall within the definition of an apple, it isn't an apple.
'Uni-' means ONE!
A Uni-verse is definitionally One, ALL inclusive!
That means that whatever you might discover, is merely one more feature of the single Universe.
The whole sci-fi 'multiverse' nonsense violates Occam's Razor, and good philosophy.
So, one pretty good reason for the Universe to be One, is because it is defined as such.
And there is no good reason to question that definition, despite ignorant scientists.

QUANTUM MECHANICS!! Consciousness consists of electrical impulses of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a redefining of the sensual. Beauty is the driver of life-force. We exist as electromagnetic forces!!!!!

Now you've gone sailing off into la-la land...

I'm sorry but I think you are just misunderstanding quantum physics.

"Even 'classical physics' has declared that there cannot be found, anywhere, where one thing definitively leaves off and another begins!"

Well jeez. I bet I get the nobel prize for showing the separation between an artist and his art.

You can show no such thing, there is no such 'separation'.
IF you were an 'artist', you would have known that.

Jesus did not teach 'exclusivity', but inclusivity, which is what his unconditional Love is, ALL inclusive; One!

"God cannot know himself without me." - Meister Eckhart

"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same." - Meister Eckhart

"What a man loves, he is. If he loves a stone he is that stone, if he loves a person he is that person, if he loves God - nay, I durst not say more; were I to say, he is God, he might stone me. I do but teach you the scriptures." - Meister Eckhart


tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

a reply to: windword

This is not a sound argument or true premise.

Look man. I don't mind having a conversation, but I am not going to play yes it, no it isn't game its a waste of time. If you are telling me something is wrong, then explain to me why its wrong.

Nothing ever ceases to exist, it just transforms, depending on the boundaries of perceptions of an observer.

Energy in space time never ceases to exist, that doesn't mean things don't go out of existence. Animals go extinct for example. These animals literally don't exist in reality anymore. Yes the material that made these things transforms(First law of thermodynamics), but the thing loses all the properties that made it what it was are no longer exemplified in reality. So saying it still exist doesn't make much sense unless your simply talking about what the matter turned into after death.

Says who? You? Nobody knows the boundaries or mechanism of the universe, in total.

If you are going to say my position is incorrect or say that I don't know then show the universe to be the opposite or state your opinion let us know you have no intention of actually backing up your own position and save us both a bunch of time.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Animals go extinct for example. These animals literally don't exist in reality anymore.

Yes. Things pop in and out of existence.

These animals literally don't exist in reality anymore.

Neither does the sandwich I had for lunch yesterday.

Yes the material that made these things transforms(First law of thermodynamics), but the thing loses all the properties that made it what it was are no longer exemplified in reality.

Now you're back talking about identity and existence being the same thing.

So saying it still exist doesn't make much sense unless your simply talking about what the matter turned into after death.

Why do you concentrate on "after death" and not on before conception? Does something come from nothing? Does something turn into nothing? Of course not!

If you are going to say my position is incorrect or say that I don't know then show the universe to be the opposite or state your opinion let us know you have no intention of actually backing up your own position and save us both a bunch of time.

Whether the Universe is finite or infinite is an important question, and either outcome is mindblenderingly fun. So far, astronomers have no idea what the answer is, but they're working towards it and maybe someday they'll be able to tell us. Read more at: phys.org...

a reply to: namelesss

That is absolute gobbledygook! I said that everything exists, and you agreed. Fine. You must be intelligent and handsome! *__- Then (cometh the gobbledygook) you asserted that something "this" is the realm of temporal possibility, and anything and everything that exists in this realm, does so necessarily.

i am sorry, but if you think its "gobbledygook" then you simply aren't familiar with the type of semantics I am using. I am speaking in terms of subjunctive possibilities.

en.wikipedia.org...


Temporal possibility is possibility given the actual history of the world. So you can see how if we are speaking in this realm of possibility the statement Everything that exist, given the actual history of the world, would therefore exist. So temporally everything that exist, is necessary.

This does not hold in the realm of the other types of possibility. So what we could gain from this is that any possible world(this comes from possible world semantics look into it) that isn't in line with temporal possibility is not the actual world. So for example there is a possible world where elephants have never existed, but this could not be the actual world because the actual world has elephants.

I guess that the 'fact' that it exists, is evidence of the necessity of it's existing,

In the temporal realm of necessity yes, but saying something is metaphysically necessary is a much further reaching claim. That means in all possible worlds it must exist. If elephants were necessary, metaphysically speaking, then the statement there is a possible world were elephants have never existed would be false, but elephants are not necessary in this sense. There is nothing that says about what it means to be an elephants that would lead us to think it would have to exist in any possible world description.

Then you go on to say that a 'metaphysically necessary being cannot fail to exist', but neither can your 'temporal.

Yes given the actual history of the world. The problem is the history of the world is contingent upon so many things going a specific way. It is metaphysically possible that the actual history of the world had been different than it is now.

Things don't 'necessarily or unnecessarily exist, they all exist! There are no levels of existence, no hierarchy. All that 'dualism' is ego, thought, imprinting. Vanity.

Do you look both ways before your cross the street?

Just your unsupported assertion proves nothing. The existence of any and everything in existence is 'contingent' on the existence of the Universe.

Alright lets look at it this way. I am a software consultant. Writing programs is what I do. To say that a program is not contingent upon its maker is wholly ridiculous. This is not an unsupported assumption this is a fact. Had I not typed public class MockUniverse there would be no instance of a MockUniverse in my program. No thing of the type would exist unless I chose to put it in. Everything that makes software run is dependent upon the mind that built it. The agent that put it into place.

So what you are saying is that the universe is necessary entity which is the summation of all contingent things.
My problems with your position :

A collection of only contingent things would also be contingent. There is nothing about any individual thing or even the whole collection and series of things that provides a sufficient reason for why they exist. Suppose that a book on Calculus has always existed, and one copy is always made from another. It would be obvious that we could explain a present copy of the book by appealing to the previous book from which it was copied, however this will never lead us back to a true explanation of why these books exist and why they are the way they are.

What is true of these books is also true of different states of the world, as each new state is essentially a copy of the preceding state in accordance with particular laws of change. In this case we would still lack an explanation of why there is a world at all. So if your position is that the universe is necessary, metaphysically. I am going to need some type of evidence or argument to that regard.

The functioning of your body depends on you retaining your head. Is your body contingent on your head? What a silly question, no?

I don't think you asked the right question, as the first statement was, "THE FUNCTIONING" of your body depends on you retaining your head. So the question should actually be is the functioning of your body contingent upon your head? The answer to this question is yes. Not such a silly question when you follow the pattern you set up in the first place as again it shows you how everything we can think of in the Universe is contingent.

And yet I can successfully argue that everything is 'contingent' on everything else, and that there is not anything else on which anything would be 'contingent'.

Well have at it. I am all ears.

As far as your statement; See; appeal to ignorance fallacy. See; appeal to authority fallacy. Obviously, you haven't thought this out for yourself, but 'imbibed' the thoughts of others.

Lol you are calling fallacies on something that was to give you pause. I never said because the majority of philosophers think this therefore it is true. I am simply saying that should give you could reason to think about what I am saying carefully. Nor have I said anything is true because it hasn't been proven false.

Pay attention, perhaps you might. Again I ask, do you not 'believe/think' God is One? Very simple question. Because if you do, and have the slightest insight as to what it might mean then you would have to agree with me that not anything exists other than the One Universe/Reality/God!!

Yes I believe God is One, but what I mean by that statement and what you mean by that statement are two totally different things. All I mean is that there is but One God. I don't mean that God is some type of collective consciousness, nor do I think that God is spacetime. You need to explain what you mean by these phrases because you don't mean the same things Christians would mean. This is kind of how cults work. They use Christian terminology to lure people in but they change the definition of key terms and phrases. I see this a lot in Mormonism.

No! Quite the opposite, there is no difference between the program and the programmer! They are merely two Perspectives of the same One Reality!

Please defend this position to me. I write software for a living so lets hear it. Explain to me how my programs are not contingent upon me and my existence.

There are many avenues of Knowledge. I'm going to grab a very simple concept; The definition of something defines whether that something is that something, or not!

Sure what something is, is what something is, but words don't have objective definitions. The purpose of language is to communicate each a message to another individual. If you just use your own arbitrary definitions all the time you will never understand what other people are trying to say to you. How do you get from One to All inclusive? You are being to vague

a reply to: windword

Windword: "Nothing ever ceases to exist, it just transforms, depending on the boundaries of perceptions of an observer. "

Windword: "Yes. Things pop in and out of existence. "

Which one is it?

Neither does the sandwich I had for lunch yesterday.

Correct, because the properties that made that particular sandwich are no longer exemplified in reality. Now it is possible that someone make a sandwich that mimics yours, but it still wouldn't be the exact same sandwich you ate.

Now you're back talking about identity and existence being the same thing.

No I am simply being consistent with what I think things are. When I say an elephant exist. I don't mean the matter that an elephant has decomposed into. I mean a living breathing, massive mammal is actually exemplified in reality. Now if by identity you meant something similar to the word essence, then yes I am speaking of it in relation to existence. Something is what it is. In ontology, we try and understand what makes something what it fundamentally is. So an elephant has certain things that make it what it is. The moment you lose one of these things the elephant is no longer exemplified as it no longer has the qualities of being an elephant.

When we teach children we don't teach them that a hamburger is the same thing as a cow, but rather a hamburger is cow meat, which is simply a part of what makes a cow.

Why do you concentrate on "after death" and not on before conception? Does something come from nothing? Does something turn into nothing? Of course not!

I never said it turned into nothing, I simply said that if the properties that make something what it is fundamentally, cease to be exemplified, then the thing itself also ceases to be exemplified.

Whether the Universe is finite or infinite is an important question, and either outcome is mindblenderingly fun. So far, astronomers have no idea what the answer is, but they're working towards it and maybe someday they'll be able to tell us.

This isn't evidence but I'll take it that your position is you don't know. Well if you don't know, can you give one piece of evidence we discovered in the last 200 years that points to an infinite universe? Can you explain how an infinite universe isn't a paradoxical idea? When we think about things like "Hilbert's Hotel", and other types paradoxes with relation to an actual infinite number of things.

If an infinite universe is logically impossible, then there is no reason to posit this as a possible explanation. I seem to think it is impossible for it to be exemplified because you get contradictions due to the nature of infinity.

Hilbert's Hotel

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This isn't evidence but I'll take it that your position is you don't know.

No. My position is that science doesn't "know", and neither do you.

Windword: "Nothing ever ceases to exist, it just transforms, depending on the boundaries of perceptions of an observer. "

Windword: "Yes. Things pop in and out of existence. "

Which one is it?

Both.
Nothing ever really ceases to exist, the boundaries in which the observer perceives an identity changes. Absence doesn't equal nothingness.

I never said it turned into nothing, I simply said that if the properties that make something what it is fundamentally, cease to be exemplified, then the thing itself also ceases to be exemplified.

Fundamentally? Who are you to isolate and define a temporary dynamic of subjective reality as fundamentally objective?

In other words, you contend that "something" ceases to exist after death. But you fail to acknowledge that it also failed to exist before its conception. In other words, you're telling me that some fundamental thing arises from nothing, and returns to nothing.

A wave moving along an ocean current, heading for the shore, does not cease to exist when it leaves one set of coordinates, and moves through a continuous new sets of coordinates. It's energy doesn't cease to exist when that wave crashes into the shore, either. Eventually you'll lose sight of the effects of the wave's energy, but that energy doesn't cease to exist.

a reply to: windword

No. My position is that science doesn't "know", and neither do you.

I don't need Science to tell me impossible things can't be exemplified in the actual world. I don't need Science to tell me that married bachelor's don't exist. All I need is to understand the concepts of the word married and bachelor. This is why I asked you if you can explain to me how an infinite universe could be possible when it leads to contradictions?

In other words, you contend that "something" ceases to exist after death. But you fail to acknowledge that it also failed to exist before its conception. In other words, you're telling me that some fundamental thing arises from nothing, and returns to nothing.

I am telling you no such thing. I am telling you that everything I observe does not fundamentally rise from nothing but rather relies upon some previous state of the world. The sum of these things I call the universe. Yes before something exist it is not exemplified in reality. I don't think these things come from nothing though. You should know I think God created all that is. So these things don't rise from nothing but rather an efficient cause.

Both. Nothing ever really ceases to exist, the boundaries in which the observer perceives an identity changes. Absence doesn't equal nothingness.

I never said absence equals nothingness. What you are espousing as not ceasing existence is simply the first law of thermodynamics, but what I am trying to get you to see is that isn't what I have in mind by nonexistence. When I say something doesn't exist, its properties are not exemplified in reality. You are calling this an identity change. The problem is the identity doesn't change but rather the thing we are observing no longer fits that identity. This thing will change according to certain law and the new state will be contingent upon those prior circumstances.

A wave moving along an ocean current, heading for the shore, does not cease to exist when it leaves one set of coordinates, and moves through a continuous new sets of coordinates. It's energy doesn't cease to exist when that wave crashes into the shore, either. Eventually you'll lose sight of the effects of the wave's energy, but that energy doesn't cease to exist.

Again you are simply describing the first law of thermodynamics, but I have already explained that energy is relies upon having at least one space and one time dimension.

Dear ServantOfTheLamb,
I'm willing to have another go-'round, but it appears that due to the length of your last response, there is no room to quote and reply.
So I'm going to have to break it up/condense.

I don't think you asked the right question, as the first statement was, "THE FUNCTIONING" of your body depends on you retaining your head. So the question should actually be is the functioning of your body contingent upon your head? The answer to this question is yes. Not such a silly question when you follow the pattern you set up in the first place as again it shows you how everything we can think of in the Universe is contingent.

con·tin·gent
kənˈtinjənt/Submit
adjective
1.
subject to chance.
"the contingent nature of the job"
synonyms: chance, accidental, fortuitous, possible, unforeseeable, unpredictable, random, haphazard
"contingent events"

~~~ Existence is not subject to 'chance'.
Everything exists.
Actually.
With 100% 'probability'.
Demonstrably.
So Reality is not subject to this form of 'contingency'.

2.
occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
"resolution of the conflict was contingent on the signing of a ceasefire agreement"
synonyms: dependent on, conditional on, subject to, determined by, hinging on, resting on
"the merger is contingent on government approval"

~~~ This variant affirms that the existence of something is, ultimately, 'contingent' on it's existence.
Seems to violate Occam's razor in it's needless and meaningless redundancy and unnecessary jargon.
All it says is what is, is!

Please defend this position to me. I write software for a living so let's hear it. Explain to me how my programs are not contingent upon me and my existence.

You and your produce are One.
You are asking me to explain how your programs are not 'features' of who and what you are.
The term 'contingent' is redundant and unnecessary... and misleading.

Yes I believe God is One, but what I mean by that statement and what you mean by that statement are two totally different things. All I mean is that there is but One God.

Well, that would be the most superficial of readings.
Do you believe in this One God's 'Omni-qualities'; all-Knowing, all present, etc...?
Because if you do, then that completely validates my assertion of the One God being Universally ALL inclusive!
One, with not anything 'other'.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I don't need Science to tell me impossible things can't be exemplified in the actual world.

I hate to break it to you, but our actual world isn't "all there is" in the universe. The universe is filled with things that defy your logic, like black holes and dark matter, not to mention the laws of physics that are broken and the impossible realities that are true on the quantum level.

Secondly, an exemplification of a thing is not the actual thing.

You should know I think God created all that is. So these things don't rise from nothing but rather an efficient cause.

Yes, I know that when you encounter the "impossible" among the bricks in your wall of logic, you fill in the gaps with meaningless pseudo intellectual gobble-gook like "efficient cause", which simply translates "God did it".

You are calling this an identity change. The problem is the identity doesn't change but rather the thing we are observing no longer fits that identity.

All things are temporary identities for observed parameters of existence.

You whole argument breaks to down to this: "The fact that the universe exists is proof of 'God'".

What if the Universe IS "God", and that the Universe is all there is?

a reply to: namelesss

Everything exists. Actually. With 100% 'probability'. Demonstrably.

Demonstrate it.

2. occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on. "resolution of the conflict was contingent on the signing of a ceasefire agreement" synonyms: dependent on, conditional on, subject to, determined by, hinging on, resting on "the merger is contingent on government approval"

This is the definition I am using.

~~~ This variant affirms that the existence of something is, ultimately, 'contingent' on it's existence. Seems to violate Occam's razor in it's needless and meaningless redundancy and unnecessary jargon. All it says is what is, is!

The definition above does not say what is , is, and anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills can tell you completely butchered that definition.

Contingent is an adjective meaning it is used to describe something. Now what it says about a certain thing is that the thing ONLY takes place or exist IF certain circumstances are the case. What the preceding statement means is in no way synonymous with what is, is, but rather a word used to describe something about how it exists. I mean this is a really simple idea I don't know why its so hard for you to grasp.

If C relies upon A and B occurring, but you lack A and B, then you logically cannot have C. We would say C is contingent upon A and B.

You and your produce are One. You are asking me to explain how your programs are not 'features' of who and what you are.

This is not an explanation, but rather hogs wash. Lets recall the definition you say kindly put forth and use it here with my MockUniverse example. MockUniverse will ONLY exists in my code IF I choose to put it in there, therefore the existence of an object known as MockUniverse in my program is dependent upon my choosing to do so. This can be said about anything in source code. You are simply wrong because anything you mention in this world is contingent upon some previous set of circumstances, even things in quantum physics. The observer effect is dependent upon observation and is therefore contingent.

Well, that would be the most superficial of readings.

No that is simply what it means most of the time it is used in reference to God.

Do you believe in this One God's 'Omni-qualities'; all-Knowing, all present, etc...? Because if you do, then that completely validates my assertion of the One God being Universally ALL inclusive

I believe God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent agent that transcends all of spacetime reality very similar to the way that a video game maker transcends the virtual world he creates. This doesn't validate your assertion from my point of view your assertion seems to be a non sequitur. Maybe you should define what you mean by universally all inclusive.

a reply to: windword

I hate to break it to you, but our actual world isn't "all there is" in the universe.

I don't think you understand what a possible world is. It doesn't simply refer to a universe but rather a description of reality. So if multiverse theory where true or something like that then that would be one world description not many.

The universe is filled with things that defy your logic, like black holes and dark matter, not to mention the laws of physics that are broken and the impossible realities that are true on the quantum level.

I enjoy a challenge, how exactly do black holes and dark matter defy my logic? What laws of physics are referring to and what impossible realities are you referring to.

Secondly, an exemplification of a thing is not the actual thing.

No because exemplifications refers to the properties of a thing. Unlike ostension, or the act of showing or pointing to a sample, exemplification is possession of a particular property plus reference to that properties label. For example, if a color sample has the property labelled 'blue', then the color sample exemplifies blue. So in the way that I am using it if the properties that make up a thing are not all exemplified then that thing cannot be.

Yes, I know that when you encounter the "impossible" among the bricks in your wall of logic, you fill in the gaps with meaningless pseudo intellectual gobble-gook like "efficient cause", which simply translates "God did it".

The idea of an efficient cause is not meaningless nor is it something I made up. It actually goes all the way back to at least Aristotle. You don't seem to realize that I pick my words carefully not to trick you but rather so that it is harder to misunderstand what I mean.

en.wikipedia.org...

What if the Universe IS "God", and that the Universe is all there is?

Define your terms for me so I can understand the question appropriately. What do you mean by universe and what do you mean by "God"?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I don't think you understand what a possible world is.

What? Like Heaven, the place where your "possible" god lives?

It doesn't simply refer to a universe but rather a description of reality.

What reality are you talking about?

So if multiverse theory where true or something like that then that would be one world description not many.

What? We live in the "world". Technically, we don't live out in space or on another planet or in another galaxy or in another dimension. However, if the universe is one, then everything is one, and there is no such thing as separation.

You don't seem to realize that I pick my words carefully not to trick you but rather so that it is harder to misunderstand what I mean.

I think you parrot your words carefully.

The idea of an efficient cause is not meaningless nor is it something I made up.

For your argument, "an efficient cause" simply means that "God did it", and you don't know why.

No because exemplifications refers to the properties of a thing. Unlike ostension, or the act of showing or pointing to a sample, exemplification is possession of a particular property plus reference to that properties label. For example, if a color sample has the property labelled 'blue', then the color sample exemplifies blue.

Blue is NOT a property of anything. Blue is an intangible vibration, which is actually being rejected, or thrown off of the object being observed. An object retains the opposite color on the color wheel, so what you perceive to be a blue object is in fact red.

However, all things are made up of vibration, as Pythagoras discovered, and manifest according to density. this brings us to black holes and the subject of infinity, which you deny exists within the universe. The speed of light is one of the walls that define the parameter of the physical universe that we live in. Black holes seem to defy that wall, or appear to be a possible door to an adjoining dimension, within the universe.

You say that an infinite universe and infinity are impossible. Take an object, any object you want, and cut it in half. Then cut it in half again and do that until there is nothing left to half. There you have infinity.

Your argument, again, boils down to your belief that there is a creator outside of the universe, that created the universe. You cite the universe as proof.

You say that god is an entity that has no beginning or end. I say that the universe is a self creating entity that has no beginning or end.

a reply to: windword

What? Like Heaven, the place where your "possible" god lives?

Careful with your words, the statement "God is metaphysically possible" is equivalent to the statement "God is metaphysically necessary" .

What? We live in the "world". Technically, we don't live out in space or on another planet or in another galaxy or in another dimension. However, if the universe is one, then everything is one, and there is no such thing as separation.

I mean I think I already explained to you that in the context of possible world semantics a world is not earth....

I think you parrot your words carefully.

I don't parrot my words carefully. Anything I say I have tried to understand to the best of my ability, and accepted its validity of my own accord.

For your argument, "an efficient cause" simply means that "God did it", and you don't know why.

No it means what it always mean. God is a causal agent that caused the universe, just like a Carpenter, is the causal agent behind a table.

Blue is NOT a property of anything. Blue is an intangible vibration, which is actually being rejected, or thrown off of the object being observed. An object retains the opposite color on the color wheel, so what you perceive to be a blue object is in fact red.

Oh but you just so beautifully described what a thing must do in order to be labelled blue. So what you and I mean when we say this object is 'blue' we mean it is an object that reflects light that to our eyes is what we call blue. So in order for something to exemplify blueness it must reflect blue light and absorb red light..

However, all things are made up of vibration, as Pythagoras discovered, and manifest according to density. this brings us to black holes and the subject of infinity, which you deny exists within the universe. The speed of light is one of the walls that define the parameter of the physical universe that we live in. Black holes seem to defy that wall, or appear to be a possible door to an adjoining dimension, within the universe.

I don't see how black holes do this. if we beam some light towards a black hole and staying outside the black hole, at different moments ask yourself "where are now the photons emitted by my flashlight?" you'll see (calculate, really) that they move towards the black hole slower and slower and never ever reach it. However if you (mentally) travel together with those photons, they keep moving with constant speed of light and reach the black hole very quickly without any changes in speed. The reason it never appears to reach it is because the moment it passes the event horizon the light reflecting off the object cannot make it out. The person inside the black hole wouldn't really notice a change until gravity started get so strong that they where ripped apart. What you are saying is that black holes end in white holes, but no evidence of white holes has ever been found.

You say that an infinite universe and infinity are impossible. Take an object, any object you want, and cut it in half. Then cut it in half again and do that until there is nothing left to half. There you have infinity.

If I were extremely precise I would reach a planck length and then I couldn't half it anymore, because our reality doesn't allow for that.

Your argument, again, boils down to your belief that there is a creator outside of the universe, that created the universe. You cite the universe as proof.

I reason from what I observe to the existence of an outside creator that created the universe. Why is that a bad thing?

You say that god is an entity that has no beginning or end. I say that the universe is a self creating entity that has no beginning or end.

How did it create itself and what did it create itself from?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

A "Planck Length" isn't real. It's an imaginary line in the sand used to conveniently define the parameters of our dimension, much the "Kelvin Temperature Scale". It has to do with ultimate density and perceived identity, but these imaginary parameters don't defy the concept or reality of the infinite nature of the universe.