I'm Here To Provide Answers To Your Questions ... Please Try Me

[Ouroboros]

Because, once more according to most scientific findings, the incredible fine tuning required to have the cosmos in the way we do necessitates an intelligence of some kind - cause and effect.

Actually, no.

 

First of all, the problem is that God must be "fine tuned" too, which means--using the same argument--God must have a cause. Unless we assume God is chaotic.

 

Secondly, the universe is not exactly "fine tuned." There is an imbalance between matter, antimatter, and such, and it must be, or all the stars, solar systems, and galaxies would be in an exact pattern, but they're not. Watch Stephen Hawkin's TV series "Into the Universe." He explains it better.

 

And also, since we don't have other Universes to compare to, we can't say for sure that our "tuning" of the universe is the only possible. We can only see what we can see from within this box, so assuming that this is the only kind of box that can exist is very premature by many scientists.

[3DollarBill]

One of the classic definitions of first cause is self sustaining or eternal. It can't be something that was caused by something else otherwise we're back in the dilemma of infinite regression which is mathematical impossibility.

What is often misunderstood about big-bang cosmology is that there simply was no "before the big bang." The big bang created a lot of things, including time. Time may be infinite, but only in one direction- The past is not infinite. Therefore any self-sustaining "first cause" would have to exist outside of time, which means, quite simply, outside of this universe.

 

Now there are many theories, some of them bordering on sci-fi, that account for possibilities that this universe was caused by a collision of two other universes, or even that beings in another universe caused this one. Therefore you could be right, but that possibility is one among many.

 

Well my friend then you are definitely not an atheist - you are an agnostic which is what I used to be myself. In fact, I think I might be heading back to that persona since everything I've learned regarding Christianity, especially in this sick land we live in, is pure bs.

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive, in fact they usually go hand-in-hand. Theism or atheism refers to what you believe, Gnostic or agnostic refers to what you know.

 

I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe gods exist, but my knowledge is not exhaustive and I acknowledge the possibility we could discover one. (When it comes to a "personal god" such as what fundy christians believe in, I'm a gnostic atheist as I'm pretty damn sure that's all bullshit.) You sound like an agnostic theist- You believe a god had to cause the universe but that we don't know anything about it.

 

Churchies are gnostic theists, they KNOW god exists and they talk to him, and they know if you don't worship him he'll torture you forever and ever, but he LOVES you. And he needs money!!!

[midniterider]

Why does the universe require a designer?

 

Because, once more according to most scientific findings, the incredible fine tuning required to have the cosmos in the way we do necessitates an intelligence of some kind - cause and effect.

 

Unless we happen to live in a multiverse. The laws of physics could be different in each universe in the multiverse. This would mean that we just happen to live in a universe that has the right physical properties that allow for life as we know it to exist; there could be millions or billions of other universes in which life like us is not possible. The only reason the universe seems "fine tuned" for our existence is because we happen to be able to exist in it. Here is a relevant quote from Douglas Adams:

 

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

 

 

By the way, the universe isn't terribly friendly toward life. Everywhere we turn, there are things that make it difficult for life on Earth to exist.

 

I don't necessarily think the universe was fine tuned for life on earth. I think shit just happens. Some feel that god fine tuned the universe so that life would pop up on this planet. What about the other infinite number of planets in the universe? Do we assume we are the only planet with life on it? Just because we havent found any doesnt mean there isnt. Nor does the way life exists on this planet mean that this is the ONLY way life can exist at all. A billionth of a second off means life may not have occurred here but the sheer size of the universe allows that many things with small odds can indeed occur.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hello Raoul, and welcome. Along the lines of what Legion and 3Dollar said, why not just posit that the universe is eternal? That position need not conflict with theories about the Big Bang. All the assumptions that are involved in positing a First Cause separate from the universe can be pared down, and the same work done, by positing an eternal universe. Even Aristotle held that the universe is eternal, and he criticized Plato's Timaeus for representing the universe as created. But if you go that far, it's really not necessary to hold to a first cause anymore. Cf. the atomists and Epicureans.

 

BTW Akheia - you're holding assumptions that are "off"? Say it ain't so! Come into the atheist swimming pool - the water's fine!

[raoul]

Dunno if you were the one who wrote that or I mistakenly pasted it from another member's comments but I want to make this very clear to everyone - I am not out to debate anything. Been there, done it, complete waste of time. Discussing matters rationally is all I'm after. I leave the debates for those who love fighting and wasting an incredible amount of time.

 

Well, we're the ones who asked *you* what *you* think.

 

But pleeeeeeeeeeze man, learn to quote instead of this confusing bold stuff. It'll be so much easier to follow what you're saying. What IS it with Christians and their avoidance of the "Quote" button? Thumby has trouble with that too. Do they just not get the button or something with their membership privileges? Or is there some popular Christian forum where they all learn to use different colors/fonts to differentiate people?

 

Don't call me a Christian okay? I never said I was one at least now. And don't lump everyone together - I don't do it and expect others to not do it.

[raoul]

Hello Raoul, and welcome. Along the lines of what Legion and 3Dollar said, why not just posit that the universe is eternal? That position need not conflict with theories about the Big Bang. All the assumptions that are involved in positing a First Cause separate from the universe can be pared down, and the same work done, by positing an eternal universe. Even Aristotle held that the universe is eternal, and he criticized Plato's Timaeus for representing the universe as created. But if you go that far, it's really not necessary to hold to a first cause anymore. Cf. the atomists and Epicureans.

 

BTW Akheia - you're holding assumptions that are "off"? Say it ain't so! Come into the atheist swimming pool - the water's fine!

 

Can't posit it's eternal and believe the Big Bang occurred because they're contradictory. The Big Bang may have been responsible for the creation of the universe so this means it began with specific parameters and not eternal.

[raoul]

Because, once more according to most scientific findings, the incredible fine tuning required to have the cosmos in the way we do necessitates an intelligence of some kind - cause and effect.

Actually, no.

 

First of all, the problem is that God must be "fine tuned" too, which means--using the same argument--God must have a cause. Unless we assume God is chaotic.

 

Secondly, the universe is not exactly "fine tuned." There is an imbalance between matter, antimatter, and such, and it must be, or all the stars, solar systems, and galaxies would be in an exact pattern, but they're not. Watch Stephen Hawkin's TV series "Into the Universe." He explains it better.

 

And also, since we don't have other Universes to compare to, we can't say for sure that our "tuning" of the universe is the only possible. We can only see what we can see from within this box, so assuming that this is the only kind of box that can exist is very premature by many scientists.

 

If God requires a cause then He is no longer God by the very definition of a First Cause or Prime Mover. Also, once more it would point to actual infinite regression which is not a mathematical possibility - it comes under theoretical mathematics.

[raoul]

By the way, the universe isn't terribly friendly toward life. Everywhere we turn, there are things that make it difficult for life on Earth to exist.

 

The universe isn't friendly towards life but our specific galaxy enabled it to exist, at least on our planet. And things being 'difficult' in existence is a far cry from them being 'impossible' to exist.

[raoul]

I'm going to close off this particular thread of discussion regarding the cosmos, first cause, etc. because everything posited by me or others has been done already in the past and I don't see the need to keep going on ad infnitum with things I've gone through years ago with others. But I will keep posting and perhaps share my own experiences regarding this path we all take along this road in life. Thanks for all of the comments - I've enjoyed them tremendously. As Chris Hedges said it in one of his books and this isn't an exact quote but close to it - he said that people who arrived at the conclusion of there not being a God did so through long and many times, painful, experiences. Therefore they should be as respected as any other person who may have arrived at different conclusions.

 

There are many things that make me wanna vomit regarding American Christianity but the biggest one is the utter arrogance they have towards those who don't believe what they believe. And I'm pretty sure many Christians don't know what the hell they believe or can't explain why they do in the first place.

[mcdaddy]

Hello Raoul, and welcome. Along the lines of what Legion and 3Dollar said, why not just posit that the universe is eternal? That position need not conflict with theories about the Big Bang. All the assumptions that are involved in positing a First Cause separate from the universe can be pared down, and the same work done, by positing an eternal universe. Even Aristotle held that the universe is eternal, and he criticized Plato's Timaeus for representing the universe as created. But if you go that far, it's really not necessary to hold to a first cause anymore. Cf. the atomists and Epicureans.

 

BTW Akheia - you're holding assumptions that are "off"? Say it ain't so! Come into the atheist swimming pool - the water's fine!

 

Can't posit it's eternal and believe the Big Bang occurred because they're contradictory. The Big Bang may have been responsible for the creation of the universe so this means it began with specific parameters and not eternal.

 

The big bang doesn't HAVE to be the "beginning" of anything.

[FeelHappy]

Don't call me a Christian okay? I never said I was one at least now. And don't lump everyone together - I don't do it and expect others to not do it.

 

So you're not a christian?? You can be an ex-christian and remain a theist.

[Ouroboros]

If God requires a cause then He is no longer God by the very definition of a First Cause or Prime Mover.

You're presupposing that a natural First Cause needs a supernatural First Cause. There's nothing in nature to show that this is necessary or true.

 

If perfection needs perfection to exist, then latter perfection needs a perfection to exist as well.

 

You can't use the "Fine Tune" argument unless you claim that God is out of tune.

 

Also, once more it would point to actual infinite regression which is not a mathematical possibility - it comes under theoretical mathematics.

Eh? Mathematics contain an infinite amount of infinite regressions. Calculus is a whole field of study just of mathematical infinites. Explain to me what convergence and divergence means without talking about infinites. And please look up integrals, especially improper intg.

[raoul]

If God requires a cause then He is no longer God by the very definition of a First Cause or Prime Mover.

You're presupposing that a natural First Cause needs a supernatural First Cause. There's nothing in nature to show that this is necessary or true.

 

If perfection needs perfection to exist, then latter perfection needs a perfection to exist as well.

 

You can't use the "Fine Tune" argument unless you claim that God is out of tune.

 

Also, once more it would point to actual infinite regression which is not a mathematical possibility - it comes under theoretical mathematics.

Eh? Mathematics contain an infinite amount of infinite regressions. Calculus is a whole field of study just of mathematical infinites. Explain to me what convergence and divergence means without talking about infinites. And please look up integrals, especially improper intg.

 

Explain to you convergence/divergence? What are you, my math teacher? LOL

And Calculus along with other disciplines that presuppose 'infinites' are talking about 'potential' infinites and not 'actual' infinites - now you go study them okay? I'm too busy cooking a pasta dinner for my better half.

[raoul]

Hello Raoul, and welcome. Along the lines of what Legion and 3Dollar said, why not just posit that the universe is eternal? That position need not conflict with theories about the Big Bang. All the assumptions that are involved in positing a First Cause separate from the universe can be pared down, and the same work done, by positing an eternal universe. Even Aristotle held that the universe is eternal, and he criticized Plato's Timaeus for representing the universe as created. But if you go that far, it's really not necessary to hold to a first cause anymore. Cf. the atomists and Epicureans.

 

BTW Akheia - you're holding assumptions that are "off"? Say it ain't so! Come into the atheist swimming pool - the water's fine!

 

Can't posit it's eternal and believe the Big Bang occurred because they're contradictory. The Big Bang may have been responsible for the creation of the universe so this means it began with specific parameters and not eternal.

 

The big bang doesn't HAVE to be the "beginning" of anything.

Then pray tell why did it happen? And does this mean the universe we live in was formed outside of the bb or in another universe or what? LOL

[mcdaddy]

Hello Raoul, and welcome. Along the lines of what Legion and 3Dollar said, why not just posit that the universe is eternal? That position need not conflict with theories about the Big Bang. All the assumptions that are involved in positing a First Cause separate from the universe can be pared down, and the same work done, by positing an eternal universe. Even Aristotle held that the universe is eternal, and he criticized Plato's Timaeus for representing the universe as created. But if you go that far, it's really not necessary to hold to a first cause anymore. Cf. the atomists and Epicureans.

 

BTW Akheia - you're holding assumptions that are "off"? Say it ain't so! Come into the atheist swimming pool - the water's fine!

 

Can't posit it's eternal and believe the Big Bang occurred because they're contradictory. The Big Bang may have been responsible for the creation of the universe so this means it began with specific parameters and not eternal.

 

The big bang doesn't HAVE to be the "beginning" of anything.

Then pray tell why did it happen? And does this mean the universe we live in was formed outside of the bb or in another universe or what? LOL

 

The big bang had "something" that "banged". It was the singularity. The singularity never "didn't exist" as far as we know. We didn't come from "nothing", we came from the singularity. Science doesn't say we came from nothing- in fact, acc to recent findings, even "nothing" is something- Lawrence Krauss.

[ConureDelSol]

Awww...I only skipped four pages...where did Mr. Christian go?

[Overcame Faith]

Awww...I only skipped four pages...where did Mr. Christian go?

 

I think he answered all our questions and departed with a smile for his great success on god's behalf. His answer(s): it was god's will, or sin, or rebellion, or a choice, or the devil. The silly details that we wanted to know about like how could god allow children to starve in Africa, were trivial issues which didn't deserve his time. You know, something like that.

[Thought2Much]

Then pray tell why did it happen? And does this mean the universe we live in was formed outside of the bb or in another universe or what? LOL

 

It doesn't matter. Just because we don't know why or how a particular thing happened doesn't necessarily mean that some pre-existing, supernatural being caused it. If "god" isn't the answer to any of our other scientific questions, then I don't see why "god" would automatically be considered to be the answer for this one, either.

[Ouroboros]

Explain to you convergence/divergence? What are you, my math teacher? LOL

And Calculus along with other disciplines that presuppose 'infinites' are talking about 'potential' infinites and not 'actual' infinites - now you go study them okay? I'm too busy cooking a pasta dinner for my better half.

Math is about the principles and the abstracts, not the 'actuals'. Hence the conflict and paradoxes that math can bring about when considered in real.

 

Can you give a reference to the mathematical proof that infinites do not exist?

 

And now I'm heading out to setup our garden and new plants.

 

---

 

Viney's argument, which he notes was also recognized as a problem by St Bonaventure, runs as follows: To claim that the universe could have begun, say, 2 seconds earlier is to imply that there is some measure of time that is outside and independent of the universe. However, since the first moment of time, by definition, marks the beginning of time, there can be no such independent and external measure of time.^[3]

Viney thus declares the debate between the finitist position and the infinitist position on time to be a stalemate, since the former is no less paradoxical than the latter.^[3]

(Wikipedia. Temporal Finitism.)

[micksherlock]

It is so funny you call it a pyramid scheme, because in the 2nd volume of my 'I am Christ series, I compare Christianity to Amway!

 

Having been in amway, there is little difference. In fact on Sunday's at their major confrences they do a whorship service, altar call and all. With the usual preaching pattern.

It is so funny you call it a pyramid scheme, because in the 2nd volume of my 'I am Christ series, I compare Christianity to Amway!

 

Having been in amway, there is little difference. In fact on Sunday's at their major confrences they do a whorship service, altar call and all. With the usual preaching pattern.

 

Ok. I had no idea about all that!! I was only referring to the structure, re: sales and marketing. Thanks for sharing that.

[3DollarBill]

Awww...I only skipped four pages...where did Mr. Christian go?

He found a new bridge to troll. Although I haven't seen him today at all.

 

 

There are many things that make me wanna vomit regarding American Christianity but the biggest one is the utter arrogance they have towards those who don't believe what they believe. And I'm pretty sure many Christians don't know what the hell they believe or can't explain why they do in the first place.

Damn straight. Good talking with you raoul.

[Akheia]

Michael, back when my friend was trying to get me into Amway, they had voicemail boxes (this was in the 90s) you could rent so you could get official news and messages from your upline (your priests, sort of). He'd let me listen to the messages sometimes and every single time I did, there was some Christian prayer or inspirational message in the box. They had tapes and brochures and newsletters too, and all of these were strongly, ridiculously evangelical. GOD wanted you to succeed at "your business," so praying was a requirement.

 

I'm a little sad that we chased Doug off so quickly. I guess all our talk about shaking the dust off his feet finally sunk in. Bet he is busy growling on his fundie forums about how apostate we all are.

[Thought2Much]

I'm a little sad that we chased Doug off so quickly. I guess all our talk about shaking the dust off his feet finally sunk in. Bet he is busy growling on his fundie forums about how apostate we all are.

 

Sorry about that. Next time I'll wait longer to bring up that verse.

[Akheia]

Dammit, T2M, TIMING, man, it's all about TIMING.

[3DollarBill]

 

I'm a little sad that we chased Doug off so quickly. I guess all our talk about shaking the dust off his feet finally sunk in. Bet he is busy growling on his fundie forums about how apostate we all are.

Probably a thousand little churchies are praying for us right now!