100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The cosmological argument | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The other thread was a little too broad for the purposes of properly espousing the various nuances of this argument.
quotes taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument Plato's demiurge and Aristotle's Prime Mover each referred to a being who, they speculated, set in motion an already existing essence of the Cosmos. Aquinas's argument from contingency is distinct from a first cause argument, since it assumes the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is, rather, a form of argument from universal causation. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.
The thing that these ancient philosophers lacked was current understanding of physics. We now understand that there is an internal essence to the universe: energy. It can change, it can even cease to be energy in the standard way of thinking of energy, it can become matter, which in my mind is an exotic form of energy, but it can never cease to exist, nor would it follow that it would begin to exist. Energy is fundamental. "In esse" and "in fieri"
Now if you posit that god is merely this eternal energy, then sure we agree god created the universe and I accept that god exists . . . .
The difference between the arguments from causation in fieri and in esse is a fairly important one. In fieri is generally translated as "becoming", while in esse is generally translated as "in existence". In fieri, the process of becoming, is similar to building a house. Once it is built, the builder walks away, and it stands on its own accord. (It may require occasional maintenance, but that is beyond the scope of the first cause argument.) In esse (in existence) is more akin to the light from a candle or the liquid in a vessel. George Hayward Joyce, SJ, explained that "...where the light of the candle is dependent on the candle's continued existence, not only does a candle produce light in a room in the first instance, but its continued presence is necessary if the illumination is to continue. If it is removed, the light ceases. Again, a liquid receives its shape from the vessel in which it is contained; but were the pressure of the containing sides withdrawn, it would not retain its form for an instant." This form of the argument is far more difficult to separate from a purely first cause argument than is the example of the house's maintenance above, because here the First Cause is insufficient without the candle's or vessel's continued existence.[11] Thus, Aristotle's argument is in fieri, while Aquinas' argument is both in fieri and in esse (plus an additional argument from contingency). This distinction is an excellent example of the difference between a deistic view (Aristotle) and a theistic view (Aquinas). Leibnitz, who wrote more than two centuries before the Big Bang was taken for granted, was arguing in esse. As a general trend, the modern slants on the cosmological argument, including the Kalam argument, tend to lean very strongly towards an in fieri argument. But what is a god that is only energy. If god had no say in its creation, can it be called a god or is it just a natural property of existence? It is true, either the universe had a first cause or it was eternal. But to claim the reason the universe is not eternal is because there is an eternal universal creative consciousness just pushes back the problem one step further, it answers nothing. We must then apply this same argument to the first cause of this being, or accept an infinity of time before god decided to create this universe . . . The fact that energy is eternal in one form or another seems to me to show the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ljcc1964
on
Sun 01/18/09 07:29 AM
|
|
Super terrific reasoning. However, you are also making the assumption that we, as human beings with human understanding, can somehow completely or even just sufficiently grasp the scope of a non-human being, namely God. It's nice to be able to state that we can now figure out God, because we have all these nice scientific theorems. But this is just us again, saying we can now put God in a box with a label....and it just can't be done.
Dang. My son just ate my chapstick. Gotta scram...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We lack the capability to understand god, therefore god exists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 01/18/09 07:48 AM
|
|
We lack the capability to understand god, therefore god exists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ljcc1964
on
Sun 01/18/09 03:08 PM
|
|
We lack the capability to understand god, therefore god exists?
I would pose the opposite: If we lack the ability to understand God....does that necessarily mean that He doesn't exist? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We lack the capability to understand god, therefore god exists?
You got that right, handsome. We simply cannot rely on our own proven axioms and theorems to prove or disprove the existence of God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 01/18/09 03:12 PM
|
|
The fact that neither you, nor I, nor anyone can prove that a creator or a godhead does not exist, does not substantiate its existence. Does square one sound familiar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find the argument pointless until and unless someone defines what they actually mean by "GOD." To refer to GOD as either a HE or a SHE implies that GOD is a male or female. That has not been established, so I would first insist GOD be referred to as IT unless a person wants to begin by describing God as a He or she, in which case "God" becomes a sexual being. Once a basic premise is established on what the meaning of the term GOD is, then an argument can proceed as to whether this thing exists or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB.....
then god created EACH one MALE and FEMALE in the image of GOD..... then EACH was FIRST said to have a GREATER SELF, original creation, male and female equal.... later in text said that that "GOD lie and REST in the HEART of man, must be applied to the beginning...... if it say GOD then ANYWHERE IN TEXT, this be the HUMAN ITSELF...... then "god" seen adom was lonely, so "god" made women and called her "eve"....... then original creation male itself created it's own original creation "eve", a bride, and why it was once spoken in wisdom, two hearts as one, why all the fables of old days of cinderella and snow white and all such things, always being PRESENT in the "forethought" or "subconscious" of humans, as if breath be life, then THOUGHTS of humans, were and are FIRST, and IF "god" be seen in each human as equal, the sight to find the answers longed for come forth, from the HEART....... just ideas JB..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 01/19/09 02:15 PM
|
|
Whether God is male or female or both was not my point.
My point is if you start off calling God "HE" then you have already established a premise for what your concept of God is, which has not been agreed upon, therefore it assumes the existence of God right off. If you start off describing God as "The Creator" and calling it a "He," then you are assuming that some male entity of unknown origin created us. If you start with that assumption, then you start with the assumption that God exists. This thread is about the argument of the actual existence of God. Until I know what a person means by "GOD" the argument is pointless, at least to me. Now if I agreed that God was a He who is presumed to have created me and this universe, then we can start the argument of his existence with that as a premise. My next question to the person who is assuming his existence would be "Where does this entity live?" Where does he actually exist? Does he have a body like we do? If not, then how can you call him a "HE?" Excuse me, what makes him a HE? Does he have a male organ? Is HE married? Does he have a wife or consort? If you are going to start with a premise that God is a HE and is the creator, then you have some basic questions to answer or prove before the argument continues. Therefore, some basic agreed upon premise must be established about the attributes of "GOD" before you can argue about its (or HIS) existence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
davidben1
on
Mon 01/19/09 03:16 PM
|
|
JB.....
interpret as you wish........ i need not argue anything, and to argue be not my point at all..... each give one cent, and that is all i give as well.... each hearer agree what be god or not god within itself, and IF there be a god or no god.... each have the right to prove itself right, it is not a right that i wish to exercise, as such things go unto infinity with no solution.... nothing believe except what it wish to believe, and just as neccessity be the mother of invention, so to is neccessity the father of any greater knowing...... peace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 01/19/09 03:14 PM
|
|
How do boy gods give birth to creation anyway?
 I refuse to get involved with this "debate" any further until someone explains that one to me. 
I was in a pet store the other day and they had an African Gray parrot trained to say "I can talk, can you fly?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do boy gods give birth to creation anyway? I refuse to get involved with this "debate" any further until someone explains that one to me.
I was in a pet store the other day and they had an African Gray parrot trained to say "I can talk, can you fly?"
JB here is the argument that is being posed by some apologists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 01/19/09 05:00 PM
|
|
Well if someone wants to call "first cause" "God" I guess I can't stop them.
Since the argument was proposed by a Christian I was mistakenly under the impression it was an argument for the Christian concept of God. Both "first cause" and "infinity" are hard to get your mind around anyway. Personally, since I find it impossible to imagine the existence of "nothing" I tend to lean in the direction that "something" always existed. You could call that "something" God if you like. That something may have been the cosmic egg. Then along came a cosmic sperm and presto! The universe was conceived. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB..... interpret as you wish........ i need not argue anything, and to argue be not my point at all..... each give one cent, and that is all i give as well.... each hearer agree what be god or not god within itself, and IF there be a god or no god.... each have the right to prove itself right, it is not a right that i wish to exercise, as such things go unto infinity with no solution.... nothing believe except what it wish to believe, and just as neccessity be the mother of invention, so to is neccessity the father of any greater knowing...... peace To argue is not my point either. It has been argued to death I think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just enjoy the heck out of pointing out logical inconsistencies, especially when they come from holier than tho apologists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Sat 01/24/09 08:44 AM
|
|
Perhaps God is every thought process that every mind on this planet processes combined in one.
Meaning that all idealogies is correct and wrong at the same time. How is that possible? It is possible because everyone agrees and disagrees on everything that is mentioned in this world. One agrees on one God that sits on clouds as another finds that incorrect. Therefore those two thought processes that contradict each other are correct. So at the moment we have 6.6 billion people. Divide this number from 100% From that number we are all part of a thought process of what God is. As the population grows the thought proccesses get more difficult and the answers are harder. It is a growing procedure. yet if the planet ends up with the last human being alive then that one thought process will agree with everything it creates as the solution of what god is. If it is correct yes for it is the last thought process available. A total chaos I know and just another experimental thought I have to contemplate on what can be refuted or agreed upon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We lack the capability to understand god, therefore god exists?
I would pose the opposite: If we lack the ability to understand God....does that necessarily mean that He doesn't exist? "ljcc" ..since the arrival of Jesus which is supposely the son of God or as some claim is God, believers in God can no longer claim not to understand God ...to claim so is to admit that Jesus wasn't God or if Jesus was God didn't understand himself enough to explain who he was that is why to claim Jesus as being either the son of God or in fact God is to lessen God and why he should just be regarded as just being The Messiah and nothing more also the cosmological argument can only apply to that with an existence that is not questionable ..to claim that God created the universe with faith as proof only gives the universe a false cause when in fact it may not have a cause |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We lack the capability to understand god, therefore god exists?
Well, I don't understand women and they exist, I think? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We lack the capability to understand god, therefore god exists?
Well, I don't understand women and they exist, I think? Men understand women; they just can’t verbalize or communicate properly. Was verbal communication really necessary over the course of long hunting excursions? I don’t think so. Was language and the development there of more conducive to the females who were left at home to care for the infants? I think so. |
|
|
|
|
