The Illuminaughty shall rule over this forum, through deception, and through Lucifer's fat stomach.
Buy on AliExpress.com
What is your god like? (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
- Status
Buy on AliExpress.com
Most people my age were brought up Catholic. I knew a couple of Protestants (Anglicans), and one guy who was brought up atheist, but it was pretty homogeneous. Of my friends now, I think probably a good majority of the guys are atheist, while women seem to have hung on to their religion more. There is a bit of an Islamic presence - the mosque is a couple of miles from my home, and immigration has brought a bit more of a mix, but churches here are full of grey and white heads.
It is a principle.. a law that exists inside the universe.. let me call it a universal law or principle (I do not mean general by universal.. i only intend it to be universal as it exists inside the universe). When we make inferences using our universal laws or principles, we are bounded by the limitation of the word "universal".
Our knowledge of the world about us comes from us perceiving them using our senses and we induce the existence of such principles and we confidently generalize it to everything around us.
If there was something outside the universe (super natural realm or whatever) we can have Zero knowledge about it as we do not have the abilities to experience it at all. and so, we can never claim that our universal laws and/or principles apply in that supposed realm that is beyond our experience.
Hence, you premise should be more like:
1) Everything that exists inside the universe has a cause (derived from the universal principle of causality).
2) The universe exists
Therefore, I am unable to conclude if the universe itself follows the law/principle that is within it and therefore, the universe does not necessarily have a cause. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.. there is no way to find out.
That is unless we start experiencing the "other bigger prior universe or realm"(assuming it exists) and find out that the rules within our universe (that we know exists and induce our understanding of its principles) are the same rules in that other secret hidden universe/realm.
Not mentioning that if the rules were the same and we did experience that hidden realm, we would ask the same questions regarding that hidden universe and following your same reasoning we would think there is a one prior to it "more hidden" and agnostics over there would tell you my argument lol... unless we see god in person in it
.
I hope this gets through...
In all honesty, its far more complicated than that.... my basic point is that you cant use universal principles to talk about things "outside" of it.
Our knowledge of the world about us comes from us perceiving them using our senses and we induce the existence of such principles and we confidently generalize it to everything around us.
If there was something outside the universe (super natural realm or whatever) we can have Zero knowledge about it as we do not have the abilities to experience it at all. and so, we can never claim that our universal laws and/or principles apply in that supposed realm that is beyond our experience.
Hence, you premise should be more like:
1) Everything that exists inside the universe has a cause (derived from the universal principle of causality).
2) The universe exists
Therefore, I am unable to conclude if the universe itself follows the law/principle that is within it and therefore, the universe does not necessarily have a cause. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.. there is no way to find out.
That is unless we start experiencing the "other bigger prior universe or realm"(assuming it exists) and find out that the rules within our universe (that we know exists and induce our understanding of its principles) are the same rules in that other secret hidden universe/realm.
Not mentioning that if the rules were the same and we did experience that hidden realm, we would ask the same questions regarding that hidden universe and following your same reasoning we would think there is a one prior to it "more hidden" and agnostics over there would tell you my argument lol... unless we see god in person in it
. I hope this gets through...
In all honesty, its far more complicated than that.... my basic point is that you cant use universal principles to talk about things "outside" of it.
It is a principle.. a law that exists inside the universe.. let me call it a universal law or principle (I do not mean general by universal.. i only intend it to be universal as it exists inside the universe). When we make inferences using our universal laws or principles, we are bounded by the limitation of the word "universal".
Our knowledge of the world about us comes from us perceiving them using our senses and we induce the existence of such principles and we confidently generalize it to everything around us.
If there was something outside the universe (super natural realm or whatever) we can have Zero knowledge about it as we do not have the abilities to experience it at all. and so, we can never claim that our universal laws and/or principles apply in that supposed realm that is beyond our experience.
Hence, you premise should be more like:
1) Everything that exists inside the universe has a cause (derived from the universal principle of causality).
2) The universe exists
Therefore, I am unable to conclude if the universe itself follows the law/principle that is within it and therefore, the universe does not necessarily have a cause. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.. there is no way to find out.
That is unless we start experiencing the "other bigger prior universe or realm"(assuming it exists) and find out that the rules within our universe (that we know exists and induce our understanding of its principles) are the same rules in that other secret hidden universe/realm.
Not mentioning that if the rules were the same and we did experience that hidden realm, we would ask the same questions regarding that hidden universe and following your same reasoning we would think there is a one prior to it "more hidden" and agnostics over there would tell you my argument lol... unless we see god in person in it.
I hope this gets through...
In all honesty, its far more complicated than that.... my basic point is that you cant use universal principles to talk about things "outside" of it.
Our knowledge of the world about us comes from us perceiving them using our senses and we induce the existence of such principles and we confidently generalize it to everything around us.
If there was something outside the universe (super natural realm or whatever) we can have Zero knowledge about it as we do not have the abilities to experience it at all. and so, we can never claim that our universal laws and/or principles apply in that supposed realm that is beyond our experience.
Hence, you premise should be more like:
1) Everything that exists inside the universe has a cause (derived from the universal principle of causality).
2) The universe exists
Therefore, I am unable to conclude if the universe itself follows the law/principle that is within it and therefore, the universe does not necessarily have a cause. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.. there is no way to find out.
That is unless we start experiencing the "other bigger prior universe or realm"(assuming it exists) and find out that the rules within our universe (that we know exists and induce our understanding of its principles) are the same rules in that other secret hidden universe/realm.
Not mentioning that if the rules were the same and we did experience that hidden realm, we would ask the same questions regarding that hidden universe and following your same reasoning we would think there is a one prior to it "more hidden" and agnostics over there would tell you my argument lol... unless we see god in person in it
. I hope this gets through...
In all honesty, its far more complicated than that.... my basic point is that you cant use universal principles to talk about things "outside" of it.
You believe the universe just popped up to being from nothing?
Because if you do accept the Big Bang theory, then you will also concede that there was a starting point in time. I suppose that at time=0. the universe suddenly came into being uncaused?
Imagine you turn around right now and witness a giant kangaroo appear out of nowhere. So then you ask your friend,"Where the Fuck did that kangaroo come from(what caused to it to come here)?" and your friend replies, "It's just here, nothing caused it, its existence and presence here is absolute, there is no reason to think otherwise". Would you honestly accept his answer, it's the same principle again when debating the first cause of the universe.
Now, if you want to contend that th universe is infinite that it had no beggining, then we will jump into another type of argument. But I really do not understand why you can't accept tha if the universewas finite, meaning it began at some point, the Big Bang must have had a preceding cause. Even atheists admit this, only atheists suggest the multiverse thoery. If that's what you want to argue for, then I will take a different apporach.
The question about "does the principle of causality have a cause?" is somewhat an analogy of what i tried to say.
Why does the principle of causality need a cause?
causality is a principle in our universe... whether it exists prior to the universe thats not knowable. You are using our universe's rule to infer about something in "another universe" prior to it.
Causality is a law that exists in our universe.. it exists within it.. you cannot apply the same principle before our universe even existed.
Your Kangaroo example is correct... i wouldnt accept that it came out of nowhere.. that is because i am here on earth in the real universe which has causality in it. If you take away the universe you take away its rules and principles too(causality)..
so yes the kangaroo MUST have a cause but the universe doesnt necessarily need one, the same way, causality as a principle does not need to be caused...
If the principle of causality must have a cause(which is not the case) then we would fall into circularity because that would mean cause and effect relations existed before the principle itself existed which is absurd.
seriously, what tells you causality(a worldly principle) existed before the world even started?
Causality is a concept we have invented to make sense of things. In any case, I do agree that it exists absolutely regardless of us.
You cannot compare Causality and the universe. You can't compare a concept, idea, or principle that describes physical nature to physical nature itself. It is like comparing the force of gravity to a plane that got into an accident. You may tell me the force of gravity did not need a cause for it to come into being, thus the plane does not need a cause to have crashed. This is a fallacious argument.
Must there be a cause before the universe began? Honestly, it''s very difficult to imagine a time where there was no time, or space for that matter. However, it seems trivial that a first cause must have been necessary, don't you think?
God may have caused the universe silmultaneously with the progression of time and not before it, I don't know. The underlying truth for me, seems to be that there must have been a first cause. Any kind of force, not neccesarily God, must have been in question to trigger the Big Bang. But since nothing existed before the Big Bang, it must have been something that does not exist in our spatial dimension. Something Super-Natural.
Do we have good reason to believe that something may exist beyond our dimension?
Well, first let's examine our alternatives, shall we?
If the universe had a starting point in time, as the theory of the Big Bang suggests, 'what' caused this 'something' to come into being? It does beg the question, does it not?
Could it have been completely naturalistic? Maybe, but if it were naturalistic then it is neccesarily part of the causality principle.
Could it have been supernatural? In this case, there isn't a dilemma. Why not? Well, it is entirely possible to have another spatial dimension. It is also possible to have an infinite being that does not need to obey our universe's natural laws such as causality nor does it exist within the realms of time.
The naturalistic explanation contains a missing link. It cannot work here.
If we are ready to accept the premises and I see no reason why we shouldn't, then the supernaturalistic explanation is entirely possible.
You cannot compare Causality and the universe. You can't compare a concept, idea, or principle that describes physical nature to physical nature itself. It is like comparing the force of gravity to a plane that got into an accident. You may tell me the force of gravity did not need a cause for it to come into being, thus the plane does not need a cause to have crashed. This is a fallacious argument.
Must there be a cause before the universe began? Honestly, it''s very difficult to imagine a time where there was no time, or space for that matter. However, it seems trivial that a first cause must have been necessary, don't you think?
God may have caused the universe silmultaneously with the progression of time and not before it, I don't know. The underlying truth for me, seems to be that there must have been a first cause. Any kind of force, not neccesarily God, must have been in question to trigger the Big Bang. But since nothing existed before the Big Bang, it must have been something that does not exist in our spatial dimension. Something Super-Natural.
Do we have good reason to believe that something may exist beyond our dimension?
Well, first let's examine our alternatives, shall we?
If the universe had a starting point in time, as the theory of the Big Bang suggests, 'what' caused this 'something' to come into being? It does beg the question, does it not?
Could it have been completely naturalistic? Maybe, but if it were naturalistic then it is neccesarily part of the causality principle.
Could it have been supernatural? In this case, there isn't a dilemma. Why not? Well, it is entirely possible to have another spatial dimension. It is also possible to have an infinite being that does not need to obey our universe's natural laws such as causality nor does it exist within the realms of time.
The naturalistic explanation contains a missing link. It cannot work here.
If we are ready to accept the premises and I see no reason why we shouldn't, then the supernaturalistic explanation is entirely possible.
Just because it's a fallacious point, that doesn't mean i have to concede it.
You have only made assumptions. Back them up. Show me why causality must not exist before the world began.
You say that if you take away the universe, you are taking the way all the laws and principles thaot govern the universe. Why can't these laws exist outside the universe? Or exist before the universe began?
These are assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. You merely assumer these things, please do not blame me here if I don't agree with you. You have given me no reason to believe that causality should not exist before the universe.
Let me clarify here. Life. Life is universal yes, we believe that life only exists in our universe within 3 dimensional space, no? But what if life existed outside the universe, why do you automatically rule that very likely possibility out?
Tell me why causality is exclusively valid for our universe and I will openly concede this argument.
You have only made assumptions. Back them up. Show me why causality must not exist before the world began.
You say that if you take away the universe, you are taking the way all the laws and principles thaot govern the universe. Why can't these laws exist outside the universe? Or exist before the universe began?
These are assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. You merely assumer these things, please do not blame me here if I don't agree with you. You have given me no reason to believe that causality should not exist before the universe.
Let me clarify here. Life. Life is universal yes, we believe that life only exists in our universe within 3 dimensional space, no? But what if life existed outside the universe, why do you automatically rule that very likely possibility out?
Tell me why causality is exclusively valid for our universe and I will openly concede this argument.
Thats spot on. I am not denying the possibility.. hence i said that causality may or may not exist outside/before the universe (if there is such). We cannot know for sure either way.. If it does then okay your premises are good.. but we do not know if this is the case, as our knowledge is derived from our experiences. Thats why i said your premises aren't justified. Its epistemologically not justified.
- Status